Adopted Twins became pregnant then gave babies back! Daily Mail

[dottiedodah]

Reading unusual story in todays Daily Mail.A couple who struggled to conceive adopted twin boys .The Adopted Mum felt she couldnt bond with them very well and also felt unwell .To her surprise she found out she was pregnant!.Felt terribly guilty she couldnt bond properly and spoke to the social workers about returning them ,they went back to care after just a couple of nights !.Feels guilty obviously ,but also just couldnt do it!(husband bonded well ) thinks its possibly due to her Hormones?Aapparently may not have been able to keep them long term as issue meaning they may need to be OC anyway!.Felt sorry for her and the babies TBH what does anyone else think?

I thought it was very difficult to adopt and potential parents are put through a long and difficult process before they're allowed to adopt; well obviously not. This proves there is something seriously wrong with the selection process.

Why would I need to read the book before condemning her.

Sort of a civilised thing really isn't it? Giving people the opportunity to speak before we condemn them? You know, enshrined in law and all that. Let's do away with evidence at trials. Just have the jury read a DM article or maybe a thread on mumsnet. They can make their minds up from that.

From what I can tell so far, no one condemning her has actually read her own words. The only person who has is defending her. I'm doing neither. Just suggesting it makes sense to have a full picture before you make up your mind.

mind unless you've been through it you're not really in a position to say "obviously not". It is hard, very very hard, to be approved to adopt. People change their mind more often than you'd realise, and it is far better to do it sooner rather than later. I dont think theres anything wrong with the process at all, unless you think Social Workers should be screening prospective adopters for contraception use.

Those twins dodged a bullet. Hope they are happily settled with a family who love and want them.

My real issue is the book.

I wouldn't judge her: better the adoption stops now (and babies will be snapped up by someone else quickly) then a few years down the line.

You get that this not is not actually how it happens? It takes on average far longer to adopt a baby than it does to gestate one, and you spend large parts of that time being quizzed for your suitability.

Sigh. Did you actually read my post? Of course I know that's not how it works. My point, for those who need it repeating, is that making adoptions quick and easy will not help them be successful. Which is what I originally said.

once i read that social services wouldnt have wanted the babies to be kept there with any other other children it seems the decision was taken out of their hands
I don't understand that. I work for children's services but not in the adoption team. I work with young people and families and over the years, in fact even at this moment our team have and are working with a couple of families where there is an adopted child and a biological child has unexpectedly come along. So when I read this morning that the children would have been taken away seemed odd.
That said I'm not clued up on policy but I can think of 4 families in the past 3 years that we have worked with like this.

My real issue is the book

Why? What does it say that you take issue with?

ABDude - Of course there is something wrong with the process. There is something very wrong with the parents in this case too. The twins had a lucky escape, its the other child I feel sorry for.

Those twins dodged a bullet

Well, yes in the sense that if the placement had continued they would have had parents who were coping with adopted twin toddlers with additional needs and late pregnancy, birth and a newborn. It would be extremely likely that it would have broken down in very distressing circumstances after the children had begun to attach. Much better this way.

Sadly a lot of wannabe and actual adoptive parents are narcissistic arseholes

As an adopted child (at 17 days), I'd much rather a prospective parent give me back after 2 days than hold on to me and 'try to bond' or 'try to make it work'.

I was loved from the moment Mum and Dad saw me. Same with my brother (both adopted). They did have to 'try' with either of us.

She did the right thing. As far as putting it in her book, it is part of her story, too. What would be wrong would be if she tried to contact them later in life, or if there is enough information in her book for them to identify themselves.

Sadly a lot of wannabe and actual adoptive parents are narcissistic arseholes

As are a lot of biological parents.

correction : DIDN'T have to try!

Sadly a lot of wannabe and actual adoptive parents are narcissistic arseholes

What nonsense. Arguably, this couple did the most responsible thing they possibly could in the circumstances, before the babies had begun to bond with them.

YY, @AcrossthePond55

ABDude - Of course there is something wrong with the process.

Are you willing to articulate what is actually wrong with the process? Something went wrong, that doesn't mean it was a process failure?

Sadly a lot of wannabe and actual adoptive parents are narcissistic arseholes

I'd be willing to bet it's proportionally the same amount of narcissistic arseholes as non-adopters. What a bizarre comment.

Sort of a civilised thing really isn't it? Giving people the opportunity to speak before we condemn them?

Did you just read the first part of my comment and quote it to be deliberately obtuse? I don't need to read the whole book to state that I feel using the story of how she returned the twins is unnecessary. If her reasoning for writing was to highlight postnatal depression and OCD then why would she need to include them in her story. She did not bond with the twins and asked for them to be returned to their foster carers when she found out she was pregnant. Whilst a terribly difficult thing to do this does not need to be included for her story to be powerful and effective she could have just as easily told her story and skirted over the whole issue saying that the adoption did not work out.

I'd be willing to bet it's proportionally the same amount of narcissistic arseholes as non-adopters. What a bizarre comment.

If the vetting process worked it should be a lot less though

i dont get why you would make money of this sad story

Sort of a civilised thing really isn't it? Giving people the opportunity to speak before we condemn them? You know, enshrined in law and all that. Let's do away with evidence at trials. Just have the jury read a DM article or maybe a thread on mumsnet.

What a silly post. No one has suggested that she should be put in prison without trial for this. There is no law that says there must be trial held before a jury before we can call someone self indulgent and self obsessed for displaying signs of those traits. I have no interest in supporting her book in any way and the interview she chose to take part in is enough for me to make my judgement.

If only they had a vetting process to stop all narcissistic areholes reproducing.

What point are you making? They would have known all about the circumstances of their adoption from life story workwhether or not the woman who almost adopted them wrote a book. She's a tiny blip in their story, and there's a very good reason why she and her husband didn't end up adopting them.Farmore difficult in their life story work as they grow up is likely to be dealing with the circumstances which led to them not growing up with their birth parents

You are wrong. I have no problem with her "giving them back". As a foster carer for over 30 years I have seen this many times. I just hope the twins were able to return to their foster carers before being placed for adoption again. Very often children leave, for adoption or to be returned to birth family only to be rejected within the week. By this time their previous placement is full with other children needing a foster home.

If you think these boys have, eventually, settled with their forever family, have had years of work done with them so they can make sense of their past and will not be affected by suddenly turning up in someone's book you are very much mistaken.

The book is that woman's story. The babies she rejected within 2 days have no place in that book. It is not their story! They have not consented to be used.

I fostered siblings of a not very high profile case. Although prevalent, at the time, as it was in our local rag that their mother went to the press about how they were "victimised" by SS. The media came sniffing... it caused major disruption to very damaged children who had taken a long time to settle but were, by that time, living a normal, settled life. There is always someone who knows their story and have no qualms about running to the press for their 5 mins of fame, causing complete devastation for the children.

The chances of them conceiving naturally were ‘impossible’, says Ali. ‘Tests revealed I wasn’t ovulating. Even when I went on Clomid [a fertility drug], the fertile phase of my cycle wasn’t long enough to result in a pregnancy.’ im not an expert but surely the last part isnt true you can get pregnant at any time its just more likely at a certain point. id also be suprised if a doctor used the word impossible.