To think adoption is often more about adults’ desires than children’s needs?

[MyNoisyGreyPombear]

It’s always framed as noble. But AIBU to think adoption sometimes fulfils adults’ wishes first, while the child’s trauma and identity issues get overlooked?

Congratulations! It's actually quite unusual for adopted kids to do well in the education system so you must be really proud.

Plus the difficulty is that every child is so different and needs aren't always easily identified at the start. I've worked with young people who have been through very extreme prolonged trauma until the age of 4 who have absolutely thrived in a long term foster placement - to them that is just their family. And I've worked with other young people who were removed immediately at birth and placed straightaway with their adoptive family, who are affected by disordered attachment and who have been unable to maintain a positive relationship with their adoptive family despite their best efforts to be consistent. There's an element of trial and error which is so hard to get around. With an older child needs are more identifiable but there's a push to place babies in foster to adopt placements before they turn 3 (because of outcomes and the lack of willing adoptive parents particularly for older children). There's no easy answers at all.

Perhaps for some but have you actually met children in care? A 3 year old who asks you if you will be their new mummy? (A friend is an emergency foster carer but latest little one has been with her 5 months whilst the courts decide her future.) adoption is the lesser evil because some children can’t be brought up by their parents

No one can disclose a child's background, but they can talk about themselves.

Yeah it's better for them to stay in bad families, revolving foster families or 'children's homes' much healthier, so if no adoption then what? Maybe if parents thought before having children there would be less need overall

But it should always be what is best for children

This is probably the couple I’m thinking off. When they initially started popping up on my feed the content was about one them transitioning and becoming a trans-man. Now the content is about adoption.

I’m part of a campaigning group that is pushing for all care-experienced/adoptive children to have an evidence-based multidisciplinary assessment of needs. The ASGSF has been a cash cow for corporate ‘therapy’ companies and adopted young people have been and are still denied access to universal services, such as CAMHS, because ASGSF. We go round in endless circles. The really tragic thing is that this clinic - the National Centre for Adoption and Fostering, the South London at Maudsley (CAFT @ SLAM), the only one in the UK to offer actual evidence-based assessments and therapies for adopted and fostered children, has been very quietly dismantled by the NHS.

As an adopter, OP, you are talking out your arse!

There were a few on the courses we attended who were looking to fulfill their needs, but they were soon disabused of that notion.

The adoption process is heavily biased towards the child's needs, not the potential adaptors, which is as it should be. In an ideal world you wouldn't be matched with a child with needs that were beyond your capabilities, but it does happen.

@Lavender14

Plus the difficulty is that every child is so different and needs aren't always easily identified at the start. I've worked with young people who have been through very extreme prolonged trauma until the age of 4 who have absolutely thrived in a long term foster placement - to them that is just their family. And I've worked with other young people who were removed immediately at birth and placed straightaway with their adoptive family, who are affected by disordered attachment and who have been unable to maintain a positive relationship with their adoptive family despite their best efforts to be consistent

This is one of the most fascinating things - that some children are dragged through hell backwards and, when given a stable loving family, thrive. Whereas others with apparently less trauma don't. It's so strange how different people react. I wonder what the difference is ... it would be so helpful to know, but there's no real way of ever finding out I suppose. But if there were, it would be possible perhaps to tailor each child's situation to their specific needs.

If the political will and money were there.

Was it truly on a whim? Navigating contact can be extremely difficult, on top of all the complex issues that raising an adopted child brings with it.

The threshold for removing a child is incredibly high, so ordering legal enforcement of direct contact would be a minefield.

And as part of lots of adopter forums on social media, I know that the new push for direct contact is putting potential adopters off, which could lead to a shortage. People who have encountered loss themselves but have come through it and are ready to adopt, now being exploited as potential unpaid foster carers (im not talking about foster to adopt but direct contact in traditional adoption routes). Many abandoning training who would have made amazing parents.

For children who would benefit from regular direct contact, well surely you're talking about long term foster care being the best situation, not someone treated as an unpaid childminder until teenage years? Adopters are still people and deserve happiness themselves.

The safeguarding circumstances you talk about being almost an exception are commonplace- otherwise these children wouldn't be in the care system. I'm not anti contact by the way. I wanted to meet my son's birth mother and stay in touch via letterbox, wanted to explore direct contact with adopted half siblings. None of it worked out, despite my best efforts. We also had a birth son to factor in. Had direct contact with birth parents been mandatory in most circumstances, we just wouldn't have adopted.

I would have agreed to direct yearly contact under certain circumstances when we were going through matching. But most of our potential matches were with children whose birth families were so chaotic that it would have jeopardised the placement.

How to say you know nothing about adoption without saying you know nothing about adoption...

I re-read my post and I’m glad you understood my tone was not negative towards adopters- I have a huge respect. The system is just not working too often. Typically I’ve seen inadequate information sharing pre-placement, for example not all records being collated and key con Bern’s missed. Frankly it’s been borderline gaslighting at times whilst adopters shout about increasing concerns for needs. It’s just really complex, and a bit of a mess- with decent people caught up and kids not having needs met. I think practice needs to also catch up with research

I know seversl families who went to the Maudsley and were incredibly disappointed with what they found there.

CAMHS was a complete lottery - most therapists had no training in adoption and many were using inappropriate language like "your real parents" and working out their own personal views on adoption on their clients.

The big problem of course is that there are no treatments for many of the problems that affect adopted children. Foetal alcohol syndrome for example. Developmental Trauma. Genetic deletions. Being born drug addicted.

I adopted in 2001 and spent years trying to work out what would help, going to seminars by the likes of Bessel van der Kalk and Bruce Perry when they came to the UK.

When I adopted there was a fad for strict parenting. Nancy Thomas was the big name. The Evergreen Attachment centre was very influential - i think Family Futures got a lot from them. Then it was gentler parenting from Bryan Post and Margot Sunderland. Holly van Gulden was popular for a while with her theories about filling the gaps. Then Bruce Perry and emdr, horse riding, drumming...

Adopters wanted something that would help where CAMHS and other services had no answers. One third of adoptions go badly wrong and another third are a real struggle.

Most adopters want to retain the ASF because they get therapists who seem to understand the issues and don't undermine them. Most don't want anything to do with CAMHS.

https://www.tiktok.com/@matthewandryanuk/video/7484672562698489110

I don't follow them but they turned up on my Facebook feed recently

Adoption is widely recognised in psychological literature as literally the most effective social intervention there is, delivering incredibly good outcomes for incredibly vulnerable children. Facts don't care about your feelings, as they say...

How to say you know nothing about adoption without saying you know nothing about adoption...

People do everything for a reason. Of course adoption is no different. It fulfils a desire to nurture children. I admire people who do it.

Yes, there are very many charlatans in the world of adoption. If you look up Bryan Post, for example, you will see that he was censured by medical boards in the US for fabricating his qualifications. Also, if you dig even deeper (before my post is deleted because reputational dollars) you will also read that Bryan Post does not believe that ADHD is a genuine disorder. These are the types of idiots who are influencing the social worker narrative. I think you may have misread my posts? Nowhere have I said that CAMHS services are good, they need to be better for everyone, but adopted children should not be ruled out of universal health services because adoption.

Have you ever seen this

'better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt '

you clearly know jack shit about adopting

Where are you seeing this?

If you mean “stories trying to encourage more people to adopt”, then yes of course it is from the adoptive parents’ perspective. If you mean people on here asking for advice, then yes again, that shouldn’t come as a surprise.

Of course, but it doesn’t mean their voices shouldn’t be heard and that we shouldn’t be having those conversations. The issues they raise are important to help people understand the complexities of adoption and take nothing away from loving adoptive parents who do their utmost to meet their children’s needs. Yes, a lot of the creators are American, where the system is different but not all. Some I’ve seen have been British. Thinking of one young person in particular speaking about transracial adoption and how their needs could have been better met. It was very informative and constructive but the comment section was full of people minimising their trauma and telling them to be grateful.

I’ve been a children’s social worker for decades and am now involved in assessment of social workers. There is very little training for social workers on adoption - it’s a genetic qualification that covers a very broad curriculum for professional qualification. For those who specialise training is very attachment focussed, drawing on a wide body of evidence. I hadn’t heard of Bryan Post until you mentioned him here - he certainly doesn’t feature in social work training where I am.

Part of the issue is that, as in all human disciplines, received wisdom changes over the years and different theories become quite trendy and are applied in the wrong way in situations they don’t suit. Adoptive parents really need to be prepared to educate themselves well, and be prepared to fight for every support their child needs - and still not get what they need.

The bottom line is that everyone weeps for children when the system fails. No one want to pay what it takes to really support children harmed by their birth families. The idea that adopters are in it for themselves is laughable when you see what they all to often go through with the absolute minimum of support.

I have to say I found CAMHS to be excellent with my adopted DD. She received long term multi-modal therapy with a fantastic clinician who really got adoption, attachment and trauma. It’s made the world of difference to her as a young teenager.

Everyone who has a child whether naturally, through IVF, surrogacy, or adoption does it for essentially selfish reasons.

you cannot go into adoption as a saviour or a knight in shining armour, and you wouldn’t get through the training if you did. You go into it because you want to.

Absolutely, there's so much more research to be done so young people in need of care can be better supported and have their needs better met.

At a core level there's probably something about the nature of how trauma manifests and what creates resilience as opposed to the nature of the traumatic circumstance itself. Plus a better understanding of pre-birth trauma and the impact on attachment. Better resourcing, better funding and a system overhaul is just so needed across the UK.

That’s because the child’s history is confidential. And theirs to tell, not yours to gloat over.