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?

Our lo was removed from b.mom at 12 weeks old But s.services had been involved since she was 5months pregnant. We were matched at 17months.

Many different reasons for the delay.

Bmum was given many chances, wouldn't say who birth father was.
Also lo is dual heritage. Quite a rare mix and no one to match with. Whenthis ruling was relaxed wwe were shown his information and said yes.
Also, a lot of work is put into placement to make the child feel secure and comfortable. Our child was shown photos of us/heard our vooce/knew our smell immediately after matching so for a month before they met us then 10 days building up a relationship with us. Lo has no attachment issues (as yet) but a lot relies on child's past and their f.carers

[adoptive parents] "have to go through a long process to make sure they are suitable and to build up a bond with the child."

This part confuses me. The foster parent who I know looks after babies, they typically go to adoptive families 9-18 months old. They will have only met new parents very briefly (a few hours) on 1-2 occasions before they go live with them. There is no bonding, just introduction. The SWs insist that the babies adjust within a few days so no harm in doing things this way.

Chunderella

What a terrible situation for that little boy and his family (both genetic and prospective adoptive).

lljjk I have never heard of that. When we adopted our daughter who was 12months old, the introductions lasted for five days. In that time, we spent Many hours (five hours plus) getting to know her and learning her routines. I have a friend who adopted a child who was just three months old and again their intros experience (length etc) mirrored ours.

I can see the benefits of concurrent adoption. However, personally I may not have been able to do it.

Lljkk that's terrible and seems to contradict everything we know about secure attachment

I may be misinformed, or it may vary by county, or maybe has changed in last 2 yrs. But yeah, Foster carer shrugged with no comment as she was telling me how quick things went from approval to placement.

A friend of mine used to foster, usually teens but was asked to take a baby. The sw brought her straight from the hospital to their house.
By the time the court case was settled the baby was almost 1 and my friend, her DH her 3,children were very attached and considered the baby part of their family.
They applied to adopt but were told that they could not adopt the baby as they had " too many children" and they wanted the baby to be with a family with a similar racial background - tricky as no one knew for sure who the father was.
My friend fought ( cost a fortune) and eventually managed to adopt when the baby was almost 3. She was even warned at one point if she didn't stop they would take her immediately and they would never see her again.
They had to agree to promote contact with the little girls 7 siblings, who she had rarely met as they were all in different fosters but they agreed so she could stay with them.
It was a terrible few years for them, even if it did have a happy ending