To think the way some birth mothers are treat is appalling

[SpringHasSprung20]

A decade ago when I was still in my teens I had a baby removed from me at birth by social services and put up for adoption against my will.

It wasn't me who was the risk, I was being abused by the father and fought so hard to get away, have him prosecuted and keep my baby. I've posted about my story before.

Fast forward to now I'm approaching 30. I have a family and I'm living on the other side of the country with two subsequent children in my care full time with no SS involvement. I have a good life and haven't spoken to the abusive ex since I left him. I'm a different person. A strong person.

SS never allowed to meet the adoptive parents because I was opposing the adoption.

Do you know what contact I have with my son? One letter per year, due every April but it's usually always months late.

All of my letters are inspected by an adoption social work team before they'll be passed on to the adoptive parents/my son. Protocol. Most years they are sent back to me to edit out parts where I've told him I love him or miss him. I'm not allowed to say that, it's too emotional apparently.

I'm not daft, I know it's not in his best interests for me to be emotional in letters so I never am - but I do want him to know he's loved.

They are pedantic beyond comprehension. One year I had a letter telling me he was doing well in school, in my reply I said I was proud and he's such a clever boy. They sent my letter back and made me change "you are so clever" to "you sound clever"

I've had to plead with the adoption team for years to ask the family if I can have a photo, after 8 years of the adoption team saying "we don't let birth parents have photos" a kind contact coordinator finally agreed to ask the family for me.

The family took a while to decide but agreed I could see a photo. I can't keep it though.

I have to liase with an adoption team in my area and ask that the photo be sent to them so I can go into the office and look at it on a computer screen. Once. That won't happen this year because of covid so I have another year to wait before I can even catch a glimpse of my little boy. I have no idea what he looks like other than the sweet 6 month old face I have in a photo album, taken at our "goodbye contact"

I'm not allowed to send birthday cards or presents because it's a pain for the adoption agency to facilitate.

I have a box here that I save his cards in every year but that's not the point really is it? Imagine being a child and never getting a birthday card from your mum.

I'm not allowed to tell him about his siblings in letters. I talk to them about him all of the time but they must be kept secret.

All of the above is wrapped up as being in his best interests of course, but is it really?

I don't think he'll feel that way later on.

If you were adopted wouldn't you want to know that your 'birth' mother loved you? Would you be happy to only hear from her once a year?

I'm not a criminal and I've never hurt a child or been accused of it. I'm a good person and a good mother. I have the backing of SS here completely, after I approached them when I moved here. The senior manager raised her own concerns about how I was treat by that local authority and couldn't believe the way they work.

AIBU to think the way some birth mothers are treat is appalling? I'm not referring to abusive people or people who neglect their children, but people like me and others who were let down terribly.

I cannot move past the injustice of it all.

@pallisers that is a beautiful post.

*I have no reason to lie on an anonymous forum. My child was removed at birth because I was being abused. I was subject to things you wouldn't wish on an enemy. That abuse was then used against me, the victim, to further abuse me and my child by separating us at birth.

What do you want me to say? Social services were absolutely right to do what they did and it was all for the best? Never.

You are sadly deluded, and rather privileged, if you think this doesn't and can't happen to people.

It happens, just as I've told it, that is a fact.

You don't have to believe me but perhaps listen to others on the thread who have worked in that area.

As for calling me selfish, am I not allowed to hurt and grieve?

So many people on this thread seem to think so long as the child is well loved and the adopters are happy then the birth parent doesn't matter. I find that utterly reprehensible.

I am a person, I fucking matter.

What happened to me matters.

MY loss matters.

I'm not just an incubator, housing a baby to be shipped off to people deemed more deserving than me, then told to shut up and get over it because what I went through doesn't matter.

I'm thankful that my son appears to be well looked after and loved, does that mean I've got no reason to be upset then?

A question to those of you who have been so cruel to me on this thread, how would you like it if somebody came and and took your children away because your husband/partner abused you?

Would you accept that decision? Would you sigh and say "meh, it's for the best"

Would you bollocks.

You would be angry and you would grieve, every damn day of your life.

All of the women who post on the relationships board who are being abused by their partners, do you think they should all lose their children?

If they did lose their children, would you tell them to get over it?

I'm so so sick of how biased some people are on this forum.

Birth mum = scum who clearly doesn't deserve a child.

Adoptive parent = saint.

No disrespect to adoptive parents by the way, but the status quo is exactly that.

I'm already seen as lesser than, because my child lives with somebody else. The truth is actually im a bloody good mum and have always had the potential to be just that.

I'm kind, compassionate, a good friend, I'm giving, I'm honest, hardworking, loyal, patient.

I have two children in my care now, one of which is severely autistic. I'm deemed capable of looking after him (and frequently praised for my parenting) but I'm not good enough for my oldest son.

Yes he's settled but he should never have ended up there in the first place.

The whole thing stinks.*

I hear you OP! And I agree with you.

I can’t imagine being in your position, living through that trauma, being dealt such an injustice, losing YOUR child and being told to get over it.

I do believe SS make horrendous mistakes,. don’t understand why it’s hard for some posters to believe it happens.

@SpringHasSprung20 I wasn’t going to come back but I will to reply.

I’m an “only child” who actually has two full siblings. Finding that out in my thirties was a nice surprise and we get on well.

However, had I found this out aged maybe 18 even I maybe wouldn’t have reacted well.

You really do need to consider the best interests of your son.

Also - and appreciate this may sound trite - what happens does happen. It’s awful what happened to you - but if you’d had your son - you may never have met your DP and had the children you do now. While I don’t think “everything happens for a reason - things do happen and ither things happen as a consequence of that.

I really do wish you well - and hope you can see none of my harsh responses are in any way aimed at you

@Allthepopularkids

Bainne oh I’m fully aware of that considering I have Irish family that were involved in it. Not sure what your point is though.

Sigh. My point isn’t difficult to understand. Your post talks about institutions, priests and spitting ‘town people’ as the bad guys in the institutionalisation of girls and woman in Magdalen laundries and/or psychiatric asylums. You’ve been explicitly backing the biological mother-child/parent-child bond over the authorities and forces ranged against it. But your example doesn’t work, and you are romanticising the bond of biology. Biological mothers and fathers committed their children to the laundries and homes. No one snatched them away.

You don't know what what your ds will be told as he grows.

He may well be told that he has birth half siblings as he grows.
He may have half siblings on his birth father's side.
He may well have adoptive siblings.

He may choose to have a relationship with his half siblings, he may not.

You don't know what his adoptive parents will or won't tell him about his journey to adoption.

His truth may well be different to yours even reading his files.

If you keep your letters and cards over the years for your ds you will have something meaningful for him in the future.

As we have established that i don't matter, would it be fair to say that my children don't matter either?

The person who matters here is the adopted child.

Your children will not be traumatised by having no contact with him now. Of course, should they meet as adults then they may feel sad or wistful that they didn't meet sooner - but those are totally normal emotions that they can process healthily as adults.

The adopted child may very well suffer trauma by being forced into contact with strangers, especially if he was expected to have some kind of automatic affinity or bond with his biological siblings. Not to mention the huge upset it would likely cause in terms of why you kept them but gave him away (from his pov).

It's not fair to put this on a child. Your failure to recognise this is proof that SS are doing the right thing by keeping you at arms length.

@RickiTarr

My DCs birth mum attempted to overturn the order 4 years after they were removed from her care, the legal case went all the way to the court of appeal. I feel she was victimised in that process too, given false hope she might get the DC back and unable to really understand (like a couple of posters on this thread) that no matter if the wrong decision was made (and it wasn't, several different judges have checked!) it couldn't be undone, the DC would have been horribly damaged by even the suggestion that they might lose their 'forever family' and go to the care of their birth mum who is to them a stranger. In order to be in a good place if/when your son seeks you out, you have to process what happened so your feelings and needs don't overwhelm him and threaten you building a relationship in the future.

The thing is, I think there is an emerging recognition in some corners of the legal profession that there does need to be an option to reverse wrongful adoptions when the mistake is realised early enough, (and I mean in the very worst cases such as the Norfolk case referenced upthread or the Carter/Cox case I linked) because otherwise what incentive is there for the very worst SS departments to avoid negligence or malpractice?

That’s why the occasional test case is being tried, I believe.

Of course that sets up a horrendous conflict around the needs of the child but it’s analogous to a kidnapped baby being recovered when it is three. The expertise to reintegrate a child into their FOI and minimise the damage does exist in the world. Similar also happens with foster to adopt, it’s all very difficult and painful for everyone involved, but (I emphasise) in the very worst, most egregious cases, some professionals believe there is a case for it.

Meanwhile, of course stranger adopters will find it impossible to even discuss.

That sounds very unlikely to me, and I sincerely hope it is not happening - because that will make it even harder to find adoptive parents. The early placement system makes it difficult enough, although I agree that’s a good idea.

The parallel with a kidnapped child does not stand up. Parents who adopt in the UK go through a long and formalised process to end up with the same rights as a birth parent by the end of it.

It’s very sad when children are removed before every option has been explored, and I don’t doubt it can happen occasionally. But even a few minutes consideration should make it obvious that taking adopted children back is not in the best interests of those specific children or adopted children as a group. Given SS is almost entirely and rightly focused on the needs of children, this is why I am doubtful this is happening.

Negligence in SS depts can be dealt with in the same way it is anywhere else, by having an investigation and sacking people with prosecution and sentencing in cases of extreme negligence.

@pallisers That was beautiful. I'm glad you had a loving relationship with all your parents.

I believe you OP.

I'm sure it brings you some comfort knowing he has parents who love him and he is doing well. But it sounds very unfair to you. They are putting first what best for the child (ss have made these these decisions rightly or wrongly, it doesn't sound right what happened with you though) But it happened and they will always put ahead what they deem is best for the child now, so it sounds like you are stuck between a rock and a hard place and have no control, you should have better rights but at the same time I'm sure you are worried about blowing the little contact you have. One day I hope you can have a close relationship with him but it may only be when he is old enough to make his own choices. There can never be enough people to love a child and I'm sure he knows you love him. He will always be your son who you carried and wanted nobody can change that fact, he is your blood and will always be apart of you.

It’s very sad when children are removed before every option has been explored, and I don’t doubt it can happen occasionally. But even a few minutes consideration should make it obvious that taking adopted children back is not in the best interests of those specific children or adopted children as a group. Given SS is almost entirely and rightly focused on the needs of children, this is why I am doubtful this is happening.

Negligence in SS depts can be dealt with in the same way it is anywhere else, by having an investigation and sacking people with prosecution and sentencing in cases of extreme negligence.

So that’s what you say should happen in the rare cases like the Webster and Cox/Carter cases, and seemingly OP’s case? Even when the mistake is discovered? Even when it’s a small baby? Or older DC who remember their parents? Your answer is always sackings in the SS office and no righting of the wrong done to parents and children?

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/7883792.stm

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-46568046

Just one of many examples of social workers lying/fabricating/tampering with evidence:

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2015/B186.html

@RickiTarr
Your response is ironic. I am talking as someone who has managed to escape one of the horrendous violent and mentally abusive relationships. And yes I did have to CHANGE. My mindset had to change, I had to change my decisions on accessing help services that were offered to me, I had to change and grow as a person before even contemplating how to escape the situation. No victim blaming here! Of course it’s not a lifestyle choice but that doesn’t mean it’s not a lifestyle that would require change before placing a child in it.
And if trying to revoke a placement order you know the question social services would ask- ‘what has CHANGED in the parents circumstances to enable them to now care safely for said child’.

@secular39

I think some of the posters, who have been adopted, may be a tad bit jealous that they probably don't have a birth parent knocking at their door. Harsh but true- and are taking it on you.

What a disgusting thing to say. Embarrassingly so.

Invalidating the experience of a number of posters who said the same thing - they felt safe and loved and so didn't have a longing for their birth family. I certainly felt that way and feel incredibly lucky that I did.

Settled, happy and secure as every child should be. The audacity of you imagining how you might feel and saying they are basically lying to themselves and are actually jealous is staggering.

[quote HereLiveIAmNotACat]@RickiTarr
Your response is ironic. I am talking as someone who has managed to escape one of the horrendous violent and mentally abusive relationships. And yes I did have to CHANGE. My mindset had to change, I had to change my decisions on accessing help services that were offered to me, I had to change and grow as a person before even contemplating how to escape the situation. No victim blaming here! Of course it’s not a lifestyle choice but that doesn’t mean it’s not a lifestyle that would require change before placing a child in it.
And if trying to revoke a placement order you know the question social services would ask- ‘what has CHANGED in the parents circumstances to enable them to now care safely for said child’.[/quote]
No it’s not ironic. Some DV victims need to address childhood patterns etc. However what a lot of DV victims need to escape is just cash and practical logistical help.

I’m sorry you were so enmeshed but please don’t use that as a reason to inadvertently victim blame.

DV is a crime perpetrated by one individuals on another (or others) and the victims do not consent.

OP I'm so sorry. I believe you, and I can't believe some of the responses you are getting. I hope that one day you get justice and redress. I hope your son decides to seek contact with you when he is old enough and that you can build a relationship.

@SoulofanAggron

However the child has a stable, non violent functional happy home. He has not suffered.

@2021namechanger He could have and could've had a stable, non violent, functional, happy home with his bio mum. That'd be even better.

Assuming there's not much wrong with the mum then no-one will probably understand a baby like his own mum who has half his genes. And probably no-one will ever love him as much as she does.

Happy to confirm my mum, who raised me, loves me more than anything. Just as much as a birth mother. She is my mother and my birth mother would, I hope, be pleased and feel lucky (as do i) that I have been loved. It's awful to say parents who longed for a child, went through the rigorous adoption process, were selected to provide a forever home and raised that child their entire life are not the people who love that child the most. They know the child inside out.

That doesn't take away the birth mothers pain or journey, but it's so damaging to adopted people to guess how the parties involved must feel when they haven't been through it.

My family are my family. My mum is my mum. I hope my birth mum would be delighted I love and am loved just as much as bio parents love their children.

OP I'm going to bed now but just wanted to say, my DC know about their younger half sibling and that they live with birth mum, I think it is right for them to know that and if SS are forbidding you from mentioning your other DC in letters that doesn't necessarily mean your son doesn't know about them. The adoption system has an expectation that adopted DC know their story age appropriately, they should have a life story book and adopters are told they must not hide info like siblings from the DC, as it's not in their best interests for it to come out later on. So it may be that your son does know he has younger siblings, but there's a reason SS have asked you not to write about them in your letterbox, we can't know. Anyway, I just thought it might help to think just because you've been asked not to mention them, he might well know about them anyway.

ColdBrightClearMorning I am really a very average mum, but thank you.

[quote RickiTarr]It’s very sad when children are removed before every option has been explored, and I don’t doubt it can happen occasionally. But even a few minutes consideration should make it obvious that taking adopted children back is not in the best interests of those specific children or adopted children as a group. Given SS is almost entirely and rightly focused on the needs of children, this is why I am doubtful this is happening.

Negligence in SS depts can be dealt with in the same way it is anywhere else, by having an investigation and sacking people with prosecution and sentencing in cases of extreme negligence.

So that’s what you say should happen in the rare cases like the Webster and Cox/Carter cases, and seemingly OP’s case? Even when the mistake is discovered? Even when it’s a small baby? Or older DC who remember their parents? Your answer is always sackings in the SS office and no righting of the wrong done to parents and children?

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/7883792.stm

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-46568046[/quote]
Yes, because it’s in the interests of the children - the child in the Webster Carr Case was 5 or 6 by the time it came to resolution.

It’s utterly awful for the Webster Carr couple, and a whole bunch of people should loose their jobs, but it would not be in the interests of their son to be returned to them.

Beyond that though, the whole system would break down because adoptive parents would no longer come forward if adoption was not permanent.

You cannot break an entire system to legislate for the occasional appalling mistake.