Post adoption contact has ruined the chance of adoption for so many children

[Popcornhero]

I am a paediatrician, Mum of three children (who arrived by adoption) and have several foster carer and social worker friends. I keep seeing children no longer getting adopted now there is an expectation for face to face contact with birth families.

I have seen this through work recently, and today was chatting to a foster carer friend who was saying how many children in their fostering network are no longer being adopted. Shehas a 14 month old in her care, who she's been approached to keep as a long term foster as he's been up for adoption for a year with no one to take him.

The rules now around face to face contact with birth families have meant adoption rates have plummeted. I'm so angry about it. Children deserve a fresh start with their new family & they aren't getting it because needs of birth parents are being prioritised.

Some research suggests adoptees would have liked more contact, but there is a bias in the literature. It's those most affected by the adoption that are coming forward not those who grew up and moved on and adoption is only one part of their story.

I know we wouldn't have adopted it we had had to maintain face to face contact with the birth family. They are our children and they have a lovely protected life. We changed our children's names to give them a better chance in life ( they had for example names like Thor, Loki and Renesmee and are now, Theo, Luca and Esme) **just an example. We never send photos so they can be captured in birthday parties and their identity remains safe. They know their story, they know why we are their parents. We write to the birth family yearly. It would be awful for them to feel split between two worlds.

Surely they need to review the impact this has had,before more children lose the chance at having a family?

I can imagine that it's beneficial for the adoptee not to be cut off entirely from their birth family.

This is just weird, the idea of contact after a voluntary relinquishment. I mean - what? Either you are going parent or you are not. That would be so confusing for a child and even a constant reminder you weren't kept. Baffling idea.

As pp said, there's also the possibility there could be good grandparents or other extended family who might be appropriate for contact even if parents are not.

Your friends aren't wrong to want to adopt a child who doesn't have contact with their bio family, if that's what's right for them. I am not envisaging that adoptive children or adoptive parents should be told "unless a parent is legally barred from contact with the child due to past abuse, (or is dead) you MUST remain in contact with them, no matter the impact on you."

However if a child is going to benefit from contact with their bio-family, but their bio-family cannot care for them, there should not be a blanket rule that they cannot be settled long-term in a new family.

For example, my friend A. A's mum started with a degenerative muscle wasting disease when A was about 6. A's dad was killed in a road accident when she was about 8. By the time A was maybe 10, mum was too ill to care for her. Luckily A's mum had youngish grandparents, who took A in long term. Mum died when A was 20ish, and grandma when she was in her early 30s.

Had A's grandmother not been able her, by your argument, A should either have spent 8 years potentially being moved around in foster care, or been missed out on contact with her mum for 8 years, only being able to reunite for the couple of years when mum was blind, deaf and bed ridden, to help her adoptive parents. NO just NO.

Call it selfish, but most prospective adopters don't want to assume the role of an unpaid foster carer (maintaining regular contact with birth parents.)

Yes, this was another reason we decided against adoption. We'd have had all the responsibility but none of the support.

(Also I don't think I could have endured the inevitable cry of "you're not my real mum" which would no doubt come at some point.)

Yes, I am also an adoptee and agree too.

Because maybe the parent is selfless enough to know that they are not able to look after their children as they should be. I work with one mother just like this who has voluntarily accommodated- she would love to be able to have them but knows can’t meet their needs.

@Carla786yes, of course the child always has to come first, I absolutely agree. That wasn't my point. But adopters are multifaceted humans with trauma of their own and there is no getting away from that. When you're assessed, you have to evidence how you have coped with trauma from the past. There are far fewer adoptions that are altruistic. Most come to it after infertility struggles.

There are so many reasons behind this though. I once worked with a woman who was utterly tormented by her ex partner, he was the most horrifically abusive man i think I've ever come across in the years I've worked in the sector. And she relinquished her children because she was so terrified that he would kill them to get to her. That woman did everything in her power to try and protect those kids, left the relationship and did everything right and it absolutely broke her. It was the last thing she could think to do to keep them safe from him and provide them with a good life and opportunities she knew he'd never let them have. It's rarely as simple as i just don't fancy parenting. Similarly for parents of kids with sen who maybe are older and are unable to safely parent their child but want more for them.

I do think often adoptive parents are missold an idea that their will be no contact until 18, and that people who use donor material shouldn't be sold anything as anonymous

Both are just not simply enforceable in this day and age. If it is the thing that would be a complete no for them orn deal breaker then it is important that they are aware it's a distinct possibility. Even if courts haven't ordered it

It might have been true 30 years ago when contact was more controlled and you couldn't join massive social media or buy a dna swab in a flash

Yes the birth mother may prefer this. But as an adoptee I can see drawbacks for the child.

Call it selfish, but most prospective adopters don't want to assume the role of an unpaid foster carer (maintaining regular contact with birth parents.)

Then maybe they’re not suitable people to adopt children. The children do already have parents and I think there are very few people who are able to truly cope with that reality. We all want our children to be ‘ours’ and when you adopt it can’t ever be exactly like that. It takes a certain type of person to truly be ok eith that and I think they’re few and far between.

As a small child, I knew a Polish girl who was adopted. She used to go back to see her mother in the holidays. Her mother was perfectly good as a parent - she was just unable to afford to care for her (many other kids, Poland in the early 2000s was in a much worse state economically).

I remember at 4 being shocked as I'd automatically though adoptees were orphans. Now, knowing more about international adoption, I wish there could have been a way for her to stay with her birth mother- her adoptive mother was fine afaik but I agree with you that the disruption must surely be potentially very hard.

But it's nit about the birth parent giving up their right. It's about the child's right to keep seeing their birth parent. I can see situations where, say, the parent has a low IQ, is not dangerous or abusive but unable to care. And ofc extended family might be appropriate for contact even if parents are not.

@Lavender14 yes. You have to have stopped ttc. But that doesn't mean you won't have experienced trauma from infertility. To deny it isn't human. It's how you've dealt with it that matters. Coming to terms with not having a biological child but being able to reflect on what you've been through is what agencies look for.

This

Important to bear in mind that those who are seeking adoption after exhausting IVF are approaching it from a particular angle. They have been unable to have a baby and are - presumably - looking for one. Some (probably fewer) adopters always wanted to adopt rather than have bio children and are less concerned about age etc. I wonder if these different groups would have different views about the contact issue.

Maybe- but for every adopted child who is fine without contact with the birth parent there will be others who will desperately want it and how do you predict at point of adoption? Which approach will cause less long term trauma?

@TheRocksStoppedRolling read the thread a bit more. Lots of people have addrrssed this point.

So what about children in foster care? Do they not deserve to feel safe and secure? DDs bf is in foster care and he admits it took him a long time to adjust to having two sets of parents (especially after his birth parents both remarried).
It sounds like not having contact is in the best interest of the child but I'm not convinced it's fair for foster children.

I’ve read the thread, thanks. I’m repeating what a friend who is adopted has said to me, based on her experience, which if you had read the thread a bit more would realise.

That's a good thing.

And there is perhaps (and I don’t mean this to be heartless) a conflict of interest when a couple seeks to adopt after infertility. They want a “normal”, for want of a better word, family. And part of that isn’t having to facilitate contact with bio parents.

This just sounds downright cruel. The child, fostered as a baby and cared for until two years old, would be fully bonded with the foster parents and family. To wrench them apart doesn’t bear thinking about.

In thus case a fostering option should be facilitated for the children and the mother until she can keep them safe or even better she is supported to keep them safe. Not the permament break of an adoption. That is what adoption is, it is ridiculous to pretend otherwise.

We didn’t adopt because we were infertile; we were foster carers first.

We adopted because we had bonded.

We weren’t allowed to meet the birth parents because we lived in the same town, and their behaviour hadn’t always been safe. I agreed to contact by letter though.

As soon as my son was old enough to realise what that was about (8), he asked me not to write to his birth parents. He told me he just wanted one set of parents, and that was us. He is mid twenties now and has never changed his stance on this, although I have always kept the option open to him.