To wonder how other countries manage adoption

[Justinetimefort]

I keep reading the uk is the only country with forced adoption, so how do other Western European countries manage cases where children can’t live with their birth family?

OP what would you prefer? The children remained in a constant state of limbo? There aren't enough foster carers so often they end up in children's homes and in a significant proportion of cases move on after it to the prison system.

@SonEtLumiere

I don't understand your point. Social workers are overworked and constantly under scrutiny. Quite often because they've returned children to or allowed them to remain with biological parents who are abusive or neglectful.

Netherlands here, I don't know if forced adoption exists here but I know a family who has done long term fostering where all the children were fostered from baby/toddler stage and never visited their biological parents ever again although I know that the oldest received letters from her mother. Those kids are now in their 30's themselves.

So those poor children whose birth parents are known to be unfit to bring up a child never get the security of a permanent home? That can't be right, surely!

New Zealand is very similar to Australia.

There are very, very, few children available for adoption. In very rare instances when women decide they wish to adopt a child out, there is a lot of effort put into helping them explore whether they really wish to do so, or whether they could with support, retain the child. Open adoptions are encouraged, if the decision to adopt is made, with the child being aware they are adopted, and communication and contact between the adoptive parents, child, and the birth parent. A further complication is the Maori practice of whangai, which is an informal adoption within the extended family of a child.

There is a lot of emphasis on working with the families to enable them to become safe and effective parents. There is also a focus if a child needs to be removed, on trying first to find a placement within the extended family, and within the child's race and culture, particularly if the child is Maori.

A good part of this is a belief that this is fulfilling our obligations under UNCOROC - maintaining a child's rights to maintain links with their biological family wherever possible, and links with their cultural heritage.

There is also long term foster care, and 'Home for Life' - where it seems you get all the disadvantages, both as foster parent and of foster child of fostering, but none of the benefits in terms of state support and (inadequate) funding.

Is there a national children's welfare department within the world that is adequately funded, resourced, and staffed, I wonder?

I honestly didn't realise that the state could unilaterally terminate parental guardianship rights and responsibilities over here. I'm still wrapping my head around it.

My mother was in foster care as a child, because of a terrible accident to her mother that meant the family unit couldn't stay together. She went to a lovely couple, who wanted to adopt her. To this day, she recalls the terror that they would, and she would be permanently bereft of her family.

My mother was in foster care as a child, because of a terrible accident to her mother that meant the family unit couldn't stay together. She went to a lovely couple, who wanted to adopt her. To this day, she recalls the terror that they would, and she would be permanently bereft of her family.

But this sounds like a specific and unusual instance of relinquishing because of extreme circumstances -- the more usual situation today in the UK is parents whose lives are simply too chaotic (whether from addiction, unmanaged mental illness or other reasons, which might include generations of dysfunction which meant they were never properly parented themselves) to allow to care for their children to an acceptable level.

A huge amount of effort is put into trying to help them get into a better situation, which would allow the children to stay with them (which is obviously the best solution, if the care is adequate), but small children can't wait around indefinitely in the care system on the chance that their parents will eventually become capable of parenting. How long do we give them?

In Ireland it is long term foster placement.
Rarely children homes unless the circumstances mean the child can't live in a foster family.

Relationships are maintain with birth family were possible. Regular visitation and ability to maintain a relationship with siblings.

Once a full care order is in place generally the foster placement is until they are 18 and usually longer as they have an after care package provided.

I think one of the problems is that adults debating this now come from a very different position from the children currently going through the system. "Forced adoptions" in the "long lost family" era were generally healthy babies to young unmarried healthy women. The family courts now have to agree that the birth family are unable to keep a child safe, and there is no one in the wider family who can care for that child. These children are often from very toxic families (alcohol/ drugs/ severe mental illness/ domestic violence or a combination) and the children exposed to this have potential for significant difficulties themselves going forwards.
I have certainly met many teenagers who have been in and out of the care system and are extremely damaged because they haven't had stability, and also many children placed within the wider family onSGOs who are equally as damaged, and I worry for them going forward to parent.
Adoption isn't perfect, but it isn't an easy decision or process to remove a child, and who knows what will happen going forward, ho know what children of this system will think in the future, but I think the child's needs should be paramount, and sometimes adoption is the only option.

Also all this discussion about maintaining contact with birth parents when in foster care - this sometimes adds another level of uncertainty for the child when the parent is unable to commit to that organised contact and doesn't turn up, or says inappropriate things and isn't able to reassure the child about them being in the right place at that time

We are fostering long term in Ireland. The children are in a loving, caring home and they will remain with us until they are grown up and beyond. They are encouraged to see their birth parents and siblings if it is appropriate, also grandparents, aunts, uncles etc. We are in the process of applying for guardianship, it's not adoption but we consider them our children just as much as our birth DC and love them just as much. We know many foster carers in the same position. The children aren't legally 'ours' but that does not mean that they do not have love and stability. It is not a perfect situation but it is better than forced adoption imo.

What do you mean by the term 'forced adoption'?

Forced by who? Against who? What would be reason(s)?

‘Forced adoption’ is a massively loaded term meaning adoption without the consent of the birth parents.

It’s doing the rounds at the minute because of the yellow vests. They’re against it apparently.

'Forced adoption' is an emotive way of saying 'adoption when the child isn't voluntarily relinquished by the parents', but when parental rights are legally terminated by the family courts because the parents are failing to parent the child adequately, usually because of addiction, unmanaged MH issues, other kinds of dysfunction. Some of those children will have a plan of adoption then, if no one in the birth family can care for them.

x-post with tldr. Who was more succinct.

Long term Fostering (in the UK) means;

Often having to move homes several times with absolutely no notice

Having to see birth parents who, sometimes, will have submitted the child to untold abuse or neglect. Who may, or may not turn up.

Having a caregiver who is doing it as a source of income (some foster carers are wonderful. Others aren’t. Would you want to take the risk?)

Potentially moving schools repeatedly, so never able to form meaningful friendships.

Hugely increased risk of attachment disorder.

All in the name of giving birth parents their rights (despite the sequence of events that would have had to occur before a care order was granted).

I’d love for someone to explain how the alternative to ‘forced adoption’ (completely emotive term) is in the best interest of the child, rather than the birth parents. Not individual cases. Looked After Children as a class.

In the UK it is the courts who decide if a child needs to be removed from their parents for their own safety.
Then the child can be adopted, long term fostered or place in a care home.
The adopters don't get to decide which child they want and ask them to be removed from birth parents...it doesn't work like that.
Of course it's not a perfect system....but the birth parents have usually done horrendous things to neglect / abuse their children ... how can this be stopped in the first place would be a better question to ask.

We have termination of parental rights in the US. It isn’t done lightly. Sometimes the children are adopted afterwards, but it’s tricky. The kids tend to be older and be suffering from trauma at the hands of their parents. It’s much easier to find permanent homes for babies and toddlers, but the system tries over and over to rehabilitate the parents as the children become harder to place day by day.

Forced adoption’ is a massively loaded term meaning adoption without the consent of the birth parents

Ah ok... that makes sense. So "forced adoption" is when parents are unable to adequately care for their child so are removed, by professionals from Childrens services, from their parents neglectful parenting in the best interest of the child.

That makes sense. Hardly "forced". More what is needed. Parents can't adequately parent? The child's needs are paramount

The UK isn't the only Western country to have adoption without (birth)parent consent.

At least with long-term fostering the circumstances are regularly reassessed
After a while, I think that returning to biological parents is unlikely to be in a child's interests even if the parents are reassessed. For example, a child removed at 6 months old because her birth parents were heavy drug users with very chaotic lives. Her mother finally 'gets clean' when she's 15 years old. Would it really be in her best interests to return to them, if she's settled with long-term foster carers? If not, why shouldn't those foster carers adopt her?

BlueSlipperSocks SS can’t remove a child from parents. The police can remove a child for the max of 48 hours. Judges make orders to remove children from parental care and decide upon adoptions based on a range of evidence some of which is presented by SS.

USA much more draconian than here. Adoption against parents consent is too frequent but thankfully quite rare and only should happen after every alternative has been tried. Some people are not fit to be parents, abused children have to be protected.

Still waiting

OP... care to have a go given the idea of ‘forced’ adoption makes your stomach turn?

What’s the viable alternative that is in the best interest of the children?

I do a lot of work with children in care and often when I write up summaries it makes me so sad because there are children who can be 5,6,7 years old and who have been in several homes already.

These children often have horrible back stories (there will be some like the one mentioned above about the accident which is horrible but not due to lack or care or abuse from the parents) and have spent most of their life feeling rejected.

I'm not sure why adoption for these children makes some people unhappy or stomach turning. It's very easy to sit and say "oh yes let's review the family every few months or years" whilst forgetting that at the centre is a child who will have no consistency, won't know what's going on and if the parent isn't able to get themselves sorted will have regular reminders of being rejected

people working in this field I have great admiration for (foster care/adoption/legal aide of things/ social work) and I don't think some people realise how much thought goes on behind the scenes

Fed up adopter here. Would we be having this debate if we were talking about the removal of dogs or other pets from neglectful owners who had starved, beaten, or abused them? Wouldn’t we be thankful that the RSPCA (or similar organisation) had used its powers to rescue a vulnerable creature from cruel, abusive or neglectful owners? Now, substitute dog for baby or child and have a think about the worst things that powerful humans can inflict on more vulnerable humans and then reflect on why babies and children may be ‘forcibly’ removed from the very people who should be most trusted to keep them safe.