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?

I'm currently being assessed for adoption.
U u know what the best thing would be? That I can't adopt because all the birth parents don't suffer abuse that leaves them unable to parent safely or has the help they need to parent safely.
I'd never be a concurrent carer because it would break my heart to give the child back and because I can't fathom how to parent without being able to wrap myself around the child at night when they cry.
The sytstem isn't perfect but giving the birthparents the chance to reform and to foatrwr the child is humane.

It must be really hard for older children to be moved on from foster to adoptive parents too, its not ideal to have a baby in foster care for months but the procedures and legalities need to be there. Its a shit situation that children in care are in whatever way you look at it. More long term foster carers is what's needed I think but there just aren't enough.

baby was mixed race so it wasn't possible to identity suitable matches prior to birth Matilda do you mean they had to see what colour it's skin was before matching? as a (single) mother of a mixed race son, l find that hard to get my head around. If you base it on looks, I wouldn't be able to adopt my own son!

All the reasons Fabulous gave. With regard to visits to build a bond with the new adoptive parents before they are finally adopted: They are right to be cautious and do so: in the 1940's my own mother went via a catholic church 'adoption society' straight to a 'pre approved' adoptive family - it was a spectacularly unsuccesful adoption, my grandmother was a very difficult woman. My closest childhood friend went straight to a pre approved adoptive family in the late 70's , via our local authority social services: again, she stayed/grew up there, but it was an unhappy childhood as they preferred their natural child who was born 9months later - a 'surprise'.

I looked into adopting and was told i 'had' to be a foster carer first - i felt this was a strategy to 'prove' my suitability but it also put me off as i knew i would get so attached to a foster child that giving up one would break me. So i told them to forget it for that reason. They were a bit miffed i think, totally didnt accept that it would screw me up emotionally and it was all about their 'huge need for short term fosterers'. Great, but what about the children who need long term, permanent adoption? I suppose the fostering woul pre approve me in there eyes never mind the emotional cost to me.

It has definitely changed, very young babies were routinely adopted in the 60s, but they would have come from young mothers' homes or agencies like the Catholic ones mentioned. It was also common for families not to tell children that they were adopted as it was thought to be kinder. We now know differently, so policy has changed.

I agree with Lilka and PicaK - concurrent definitely is a brilliant option to have but it wouldn't work for every single family. The responsibilities of an adoptive parent and a foster parent are so very different.

I think the American system works so differently because choosing adoption there is much more common. But I can't agree more with Lilka's view that adoption services should never be an industry driven by profit.

NRTFT but the birth parents have a right to fight to get heir children back so there's a grace period - imagine adopting a child, bonding, making plans etc for it all to be taken from underneath you

Some babies who go into care are because of drug and alcohol issues. They need full assessments for the life long complications and new parents need to be fully informed (i know with a friend who adopted a 9 month year old this took some time)

it just seems very much weighed in favour of the birth parents and I'm questioning if that's always a good thing.

Of course it's a good thing. Whatever the background of parents with issues/problems they have a right to have the opportunity to be able to turn their lives around. This is evident in a LOT of cases I've worked with as they have completely turned their lives around. Why would you think this isn't a "good thing?" Every case is different and some cases are more complex than others. As I said before, there are reasons why children taken into care at birth are placed with foster parents. Putting a child up for adoption isn't black and white. Parents have the right to object to adoption and quite rightly so. I've known parents who have had children adopted in previous years yet go on to have other children and now have a lovely little family unit. As I said it's not all black and white. The priority is always the child.

In years gone by adoption was handled completely differently (and very wrongly in my view).

Is there a reason you posted OP? It's an unusual question to ask. I'm wondering if there's a back story here.

Placement orders are down this year on the year before - 9% I think. Knock on effect of several court cases. LA's are delaying applying to get more evidence to make sure they are satisfying the courts I think. There are less children (especially younger children) available for adoption now than there were last year. And that number had gone up massively in the last few years partly because of huge governement pressure. The system changes all the time due to political and legal pressures. Ideally this wouldn't happen of course and it's frustrating.

But we all of course recognise how much evidence there should be that a child should be adopted for a PO to be granted. Some of that evidence can and might well be gathered pre-birth. But they still need post-birth evidence and some more months to gather that. They need to know circumstances aren't changing for the birth family. The application needs to be very thorough. They need to examine other options, absolutely including extended family and rule everyone out. The system is so overworked that it's inevitable there is delay (which prompts the government to say x, and the pendulum tips one way, which prompts the courts to say y, and the pendulum to tip the other way...and so on....)

I think if it looks as though it's weighted in favour of the birth parents, that's only because from the child's perspective, it is best if they can remain with them. Obviously this isn't always possible because the parents are unable or unwilling to care for the child, but it's not as simple as just placing them with a new family and all is well. The process of being adopted, even as a newborn, causes trauma to the child. And being in care with several moves even more so. If there are too many moves too early in the child's life they may well suffer from attachment disorder too.

Lilka can I ask if you are in England?

PicaK I hope you get matched very soon. What a humane post.

Bertie that's what I am asking, I suppose. I know the general overview is that a child will be damaged by being adopted and therefore adoption is a "last resort" but I can't help but think that it is HOW it is done that's at fault.

A baby placed with their adoptive parents aged just a few weeks will surely be less likely to have attachment issues than one placed at 10 months, or 18 months?

Fabulous Yes I am, and so of course I don't have experience or much knowledge of the Scottish system

I often ponder the way our adoption system works and wonder if the possibility of a system that includes open adoption like the US system could work here. Someone I am friends with in the U.S. has a younger sister who arranged an open adoption for her son. She was about 17 when she gave birth to him while still at high school. She comes from a very middle class family where it doesn't look like money and family support would be an issue. She was one of four children and the baby of the family. From what I've seen she doesn't regret her decision for one second. She sees her son regularly (a couple of times a year) as does the father who she is no longer with but they seem to be very good friends. My friends posts photos of her nephew online whenever they get them, they all send him gifts and they all truly love him. He has the benefit of having a family who I'm guessing were at a better stage in their lives to provide for him, while also knowing that his birth parents love him very much and knowing about his heritage. I find it fascinating as it is just so different from the UK but yet seems to work for them.

I know that for every positive story like this, there will be others that have not gone so well. There was a Stacey Dooley documentary a few months ago about the US adoption system and I found it very interesting but heart breaking at the same time for those who were clearly struggling with it.

I do wonder if there is a stigma attached to adoption over here that there just isn't in the US. My friend's sister is very proud of the decision she made to provide her son with a loving family who could take care of him and has been very open with friends and family.

Conversely, the wife of a friend was adopted in what must have been the early to mid nineties. I don't know how common this is but her adoption wasn't completed until she was about six. Her mother was a drug addict and just when they thought that the adoption was going to happen, she changed her mind and said she wanted her back. I really feel for this mother but also feel for my friend's wife as it did cause a great deal of trauma for her and a long delay.

This is a really interesting thread. Thanks for everyone posting

My LO was removed at birth..... our adoption was finalised when she was 2 years 3 months old.... thankfully she'd been with us as her fc's since 6 months old..... still way too long

How sad 1944girl . Maybe she should still try.

I just echo what other people say about the reasons they may need time to see if the baby should be adopted or not.

When I was only a small child myself my 1st cousin had a baby boy, she's a very volitile person, not with adults who are decent with her at all, but children or anything that annoys her she is. When she had him ss did all they could to encourage her to keep him, my Mum (who had brought me up alone) offered help, her own Mum was sick (but still there for company) which I think is important when ss are all home themselves!. They got her a home, furnished it all for her, got her to go to parenting classes (where she attacked someones DD)!. The lack of sleep she especially struggled with and in the end threw the little boy onto a mattress!. So sad. It all came to a head when one day after dropping me off at school my DM visited to find him screaming, in a very dirty nappy and hungry. She saw to him and then rang ss.

In the end it was decided he should be adopted.

They did approach my DM but she was struggling to bring me up, I was a sickly child and sometimes would be rushed to hospital at 2 or 3am, it wouldn't have been fair on any of us, so he got adopted.

Years on, my dream is to adopt a baby boy!! , funny how life works. But I'd like it clean cut iyswim, where I don't adopt family members.

He has never made contact, we often think of him and wonder how life is treating him. He will be in his 20's now. Hope he's o.k though.

But that kind of situation would take a bit of time, they (rightfully) gave her a chance....and she blew it, but at least she was given it.

Fostering to adopt exists where the adoptive parents foster the baby before the adoption order is granted.

Our son was placed with us on the day he was born; we were his emergency foster carers.
I fell instantly in love with him, then spent 6 months dreading him being taken away.

I have to say though, if I had to do it all again, even if he had been taken to be adopted elsewhere, I would still have fostered him. The grief would be mine to deal with, but I would know he'd had the best possible start.

I really believe that potential adopters should be encouraged to also consider fostering, with lots of support.

The difference between my son and my daughter (who was in three foster placements before she came to us at almost 3), is staggering. DD has attachment disorder and EBD. She has always struggled at school, being excluded several times for aggressive behaviour and language and she is constantly on high alert. DS is emotionally mature, settled and liked in school, learns well and is loving and confident.

They have the same birth parents. I believe that if DD had been given a similar start in life to DS, she would now be a different girl altogether.

She's my girl and I love her to bits, but there have been moments where we've wondered whether we could cope. Fortunately, we have found a very therapeutic school and, with their support, her behaviour issues have lessened.

We were approved to adopt an 11 month old baby (removed at birth due to historical abuse of older siblings) and an unborn child. With older child it took 11 months for the process of paperwork and matching to happen. The younger sibling was 5 months when he came to us, removed at birth and fostered while paperwork was done.
Someone asked about attachment upthread - our oldest (now 11) has huge separation anxiety, I literally can't be in another room without him panicking and calling me. Because of the disruptions before he was even a year old.

I disagree that weighing the system in favour of birth parents is always a good thing. The child should be the priority and when kids are being put back into abusive situations again and again to give birth parents another chance it damages the life and wellbeing of that child more every time. I know that the law says you have to keep trying with birth parents but I suspect that whoever wrote that hasn't been sent from pillar to post, neglected, abused and not felt safe enough to take their coat off in bed because they don't know what's gong to happen to them next.

I have cousins who are adopted.

This was back in the 1960s so things were different. My aunt thought her husband was not bonding with their second child and was worried that he wouldn't be a propper father or would favour no1 child.

What was actually happening was the birth mother had disappeared from the mother and baby home before she gave permission for adoption so, although my uncle and aunt had been prepared, already had one child and the baby was in their possession (horrible word but you know what I mean) there was a chance the birth mother would not give permission and the baby would be taken away.

Who knows if my uncle not bonding with my cousin early has had any affect on him, the baby (who is now 40+years old) or the marriage. He was basically too scared to bond.

I know adoption is about the best interests of the child, but I think it would be cruel to prospective parents to have them look after their child when there was a possibility the child would be removed.

How would you deal with that? How would the extended family deal with it? Do you buy new baby presents? Do you wait until things are official? What about things like christenings?
What if that baby is taken away after 2 months? What if another baby was ready for adoption and not available to the parents because they are in effect fostering?