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.

@Countrygirl2021 I'd be upset of course, but I'd accept the children were rightfully theirs. (I don't have kids anyway BTW but I would think that the right thing to do.)

@HeartvsBrain

The OP confided in her midwife which triggered SS involvement.

I have experienced the system in a similar way to her but in a different context, so my opinion comes from not being nicer or less cynical than you, but because of the resonance and familiarity with what she described, namely being told one thing and another happening.

Your reply smacks a little of patronising gas-lighting, another thing that happens institutionally - the OP can't possibly be objective because she's too emotionally involved, so we can discount her account and reframe the narrative to suit how the system is supposed to work rather than how it actually does in some cases.

You don't mean to insult her, but can't resist the head pat and suggestion she is just unable to accept "the truth" ?

Nope. I don’t think if there was a mix up on a maternity ward a child would or should just be swapped back. Think of the trauma that would do to that child- to have everything they have ever known and the parents they love ripped away.

But I do think that they should be able to get to know their biological parents if that were to be the case.

Don't you? The gross injustice would be the child not being with their bio parents.

You couldn’t possibly think it was in the interests of a child to be removed from their family, the people who had raised them and whom they loved and cherished and knew, and sent to live with strangers just because they were biologically related? That would clearly cause the child horrific trauma, and it’s not remotely what OP is suggesting would be helpful or warranted in her case.

@MistressoftheDarkSide

And hence the impasse.

The process should quite rightly be centred around the child. And it should include factual and unbiased reasoning alongside professional opinion. The child should be given all that information at the appropriate time, decided by those who know the child well.

In cases where there is doubt, birth parents should be allowed to have that recorded and investigated impartially. Currently it is incredibly hard to to that.

This also impacts statistical recording of alleged abuse and neglect that will carry on affecting all parties and the way CP is structured.

The category "risk of future emotional harm" is particularly open to manipulation as it is so subjective and cannot be reasonably worked at by parents in the laid out timescales rightly designed to prevent children languishing in care.

I honestly think that ‘risk of future emotional harm’ should not be allowed to be used as a reason to remove children It is too vague and too open to manipulation by unethical sw wanting to meet targets-they don’t have to prove anything they just trot this line out

The accidentally swapped at birth scenario is not remotely comparable imho. Two sets of parents with the same knowledge of the facts would have to be professionally supported to come to an agreement reflecting reality and encompassing the child best interests. A world away from forced adoption situations.

unethical sw wanting to meet targets

There are no targets that would be met by using this terminology.

There are no targets that would be met by using any of the legal language in current child protection.

Any reason for asking for the removal of a child rightly requires evidence including risk of future emotional harm.

Can you describe what would constitute evidence of risk of future emotional harm please?

Blood doesn’t make a family. Time, effort, love, actually raising the child makes them a family

Exactly. Being part of a “family” provides the child with acceptance and a sense of belonging (apart from the obvious love, affection etc) which is vital for a healthy self esteem, which, in turn, allows the child to go on to make healthy relationships with others, as well as the confidence to succeed and the ability to fail - knowing there will always be someone there to support them. A “family” is the environment in which the child flourishes. A “family” doesn’t have to be blood related.

The thing that mostly springs out at me throughout this thread is the posters who seem to think that because OP is sad and taking great strides to show how sad she is at losing her DS and wants to reach out to him with letters and photographs then her DS must feel the same and will welcome increased contact. My own experience of children I have adopted, together with various posters, who have been adopted, plus posters who have adopted as well as years of research into contact between children who have been adopted and their birth families refute that the child will be missing their birth family, or even think about them. Children should be provided with the opportunity to live a happy, carefree childhood without the nagging guilt that s/he has someone who is missing him/her and they should feel the same. How, exactly, do those posters think that burdening the child with excess baggage - in this case someone he has never met - will, in any way, be positive for a child’s development? 🧐

Anyway it is clear that OP only wants input from posters who say, “There, there OP” rather than the reality of how her intended increased contact will be detrimental to her child.

@Thehouseofmarvels my DD knows she has a sibling that is with the BM. She has sobbed about him with worry that he hasn't been removed like the others and so may not be safe. She knows about all her siblings and this one is the one who keeps her up at night. She is 11

@SoulofanAggron

Ok let’s say there’s been a mix up on the maternity ward you were on. Sorry there’s been a gross injustice - you now need to return your children to their biological parents. Do you think that’s a good idea?

@Countrygirl2021 Don't you? The gross injustice would be the child not being with their bio parents.

You would genuinely hand your 5/10/15 year old child over to their birth parent if you found out there had been a mix up at birth?

You would believe it was in the best interests of a child you loved and raised from day one to leave your family and live with their birth parents because of DNA? Really?

Also I would like to say that my DD says she doesn't have two mummies. She has a mummy/mum who she knows and loves and she has a birth mother who is 'name' part of the reluctance about letterbox was she didn't want her to refer to herself as mum/mummy because to my DD she isn't

@MistressoftheDarkSide

The accidentally swapped at birth scenario is not remotely comparable imho. Two sets of parents with the same knowledge of the facts would have to be professionally supported to come to an agreement reflecting reality and encompassing the child best interests. A world away from forced adoption situations.

It is very comparable. In both cases, you have children growing up and settling in a home with one set of parents and not another, and if those children were removed from their home and the parents they know and placed with unfamiliar people, regardless of their biological relation, it would cause those children a great deal of distress. Even if the children even thought there was a small risk, even if completely unrealistic, that they might lose the home and parents they know, it would cause them distress. At the end of the day, what is best for the child needs to come first every single time, not what the parent wants.

@andannabegins
Great user name!

I agree with you @JustTurtlesAllTheWayDown, just expressed it badly, sorry.

In that situation I find it unlikely that either set of parents would demand a simple biological swap in any case. It's far too nuanced and the would require specialist professional support to navigate without unduly traumatising the children.

I honestly think that ‘risk of future emotional harm’ should not be allowed to be used as a reason to remove children
It is too vague and too open to manipulation by unethical sw wanting to meet targets

What ‘targets’ would that be?

[quote andannabegins]@Thehouseofmarvels my DD knows she has a sibling that is with the BM. She has sobbed about him with worry that he hasn't been removed like the others and so may not be safe. She knows about all her siblings and this one is the one who keeps her up at night. She is 11[/quote]
So from what you’re saying, it sounds as if your DD has been told that her BM is an unsafe parent. No wonder she doesn’t want anything to do with her.
Fine, as long as it’s the truth.

Definition of emotional harm.

The persistent emotional maltreatment of a child such as to cause severe and persistent adverse effects on the child’s emotional development.
It may involve conveying to children that they are worthless or unloved, inadequate, or valued only insofar as they meet the needs of another person.
It may include not giving the child opportunities to express their views, deliberately silencing them or making fun of what they say or how they communicate.
It may feature age or developmentally inappropriate expectations being imposed on children. These may include interactions that are beyond the child’s developmental capability, as well as overprotection and limitation of exploration and learning, or preventing the child participating in normal social interaction.
It may involve seeing or hearing the ill-treatment of another. It may involve serious bullying (including cyber-bullying), causing children frequently to feel frightened or in danger, or the exploitation or corruption of children.
Some level of emotional abuse is involved in all types of maltreatment of a child.

So future risk of the above. Evidence could come from assessments of parental capabilities, psychological or psychiatric assessments, evidence of parenting previous dc with no parental change in the interim (usually an additional parenting assessment would be carried out to establish if changes had taken place).
It isn't really possible to provide short snappy answers which is one reason that any court document is so long.
There is a fair amount of information about all the categories of abuse available on the internet.

The "truth" is usually that at the time BPs weren't safe or able to parent, sadly. And yes, this is shared with children.

As this thread ends, I hope you're doing ok, OP, and find help to manage your grief. I'm sorry for your loss. You are entirely correct, after adoption, birth parents are treated poorly, and after adoption services, letterbox services, etc should be better.

So from what you’re saying, it sounds as if your DD has been told that her BM is an unsafe parent. No wonder she doesn’t want anything to do with her.
Fine, as long as it’s the truth.

The poster is hardly going to have invented a lie to traumatise her daughter

@endlesssnow

Thank you.

I did actually google as well.

It seems some professionals and legal types including judges accept it is a tricky definition to navigate too.

I hope it is used responsibly, for the children's sake.

I think the poster above may be referring to individual sw targets such as reports that need to be completed, rather than referring to the targets some conspiracists claim exist. Due to many factors (some forgiving, some not), often reports are rushed with no care given to how they will be read and relied upon because they urgently need to be filed with the courts, etc. I have to admit I have seen phrases such as ‘at risk of future emotional harm’ used with very little information provided to back them up which does raise questions from other professionals involved but they often fall on deaf ears.

I’ve never bought one