Page 16 | Post adoption contact has ruined the chance of adoption for so many children

Popcornhero · 2025-12-30T19:09:43+00:00

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?

Carla786 · 31/12/2025 00:30

Allisnotlost1 · 31/12/2025 00:17

Agree - and in the compassionate way I interpret you as meaning. Desperately wanting a bio child and being unable to achieve that can be heart rending. But crikey what a lot of pressure on the adoption. The reason older children are less likely to be adopted is because fewer people want them - not because of the possibility of parental contact, but because it’s harder for all involved.

Similarly where there is often a class difference - affluent couples adopting children who are invariably from a poorer background and then changing their names and moulding them to be more what they want. Of course this can be done to protect them and a few pps have mentioned this, but OP was particularly disparaging about the ‘made up names’ given to her children by their birth mother. Hopefully she will find a way to be more diplomatic if/when her children seek out their origins.

Show quote history

Re 'made up names' - if OP's kids had names like Renesmee or Loki there's a real risk of bullying. It's a bit unfair to assume she must have changed for snobbish reasons.

Carla786 · 31/12/2025 00:31

ScrollingLeaves · 31/12/2025 00:29

People think that because very very young children cannot consciously remember their first months and years that means they don’t remember. But they remember in a different way through every cell of their being.

Show quote history

Exactly

pontipinemum · 31/12/2025 00:32

I wasn't adopted so IDK if my experience counts.

But I would say no contact is best for the child, until they look for it.

Unofficially my grandparents raised me until I was 12, with mum seeing me a few times a year. Dad totally gone. I am now 37 and just seeing what sort of pain that put me through.

The seeing your mum but not understanding why she doesn't want to be your mum is very upsetting and confusing. I think my self worth would have been far better off with a more stable environment

Bigoldsnitch · 31/12/2025 00:32

OVienna · 31/12/2025 00:14

Obviously social media is a risk, goodness, that is not what I am saying. I am talking about actively faciliting contact with the bio family when the child is young and has been actively removed from them.

Edited

Show quote history

I'm just always warey of the narrative around adoption meaning that you no longer have to deal with birth parents so picked up on your permanent wording

For us it's only been about 6 years from AO until we are beginning to figure out what contact will look like

Not because of any court order but because that's clearly the direction our child is going in.
In some ways I would be relieved if there was a better frame work for pre 18 contact, and more service involvement. Instead in theory he's not having contact till 18, but the reality will be different.

Many times currently it's inherantly vulnerable teens alone working out people online, giving out details online, and making risky decisions they aren't developmental able to make because adopters aren't given the warning, or the structure for it

We were acutely aware it was a possibility because of my DW's own search, but found it often blind sides other adoptive parents who thought/ had been told that they wouldn't be dealing with it for years. If people don't want to consider it then they should be thinking twice about adopting anyway

In the same way as ivf clinics abroad still sell the idea that you can donate and be uncontactable for life when infact it's super easy to do dna tracing these days and has been for the last decade. Nothing wrong with that but let's be clear that it's not anonymous, so those donating and those receiving are clear on what they are signing up for

We need to make sure all adoptive parents are acutely aware there's a distinct possibility that birth parents will be having contact and that they will end up part of your family journey rather that promising they will be kept at bay til at least 18, or potentially permanently

Hazlenuts2016 · 31/12/2025 00:32

@Janedoe82there are ways to differentiate in screening between attachment disorder and adhd if you have a skilled assessor. An extensive multiagency assessment was carried out. But of course there will also be issues with attachment and trauma.

i don't for one second think that all drug addicts are bad people, I don't think she is. But I do know managed contact would have been very confusing for him and possibly very damaging for the reasons i outlined.

OVienna · 31/12/2025 00:35

pontipinemum · 31/12/2025 00:32

I wasn't adopted so IDK if my experience counts.

But I would say no contact is best for the child, until they look for it.

Unofficially my grandparents raised me until I was 12, with mum seeing me a few times a year. Dad totally gone. I am now 37 and just seeing what sort of pain that put me through.

The seeing your mum but not understanding why she doesn't want to be your mum is very upsetting and confusing. I think my self worth would have been far better off with a more stable environment

This is what I was driving at earlier.

TeaRoseTallulah · 31/12/2025 00:36

Nn9011 · 30/12/2025 19:30

They will always be that child's biological parents. Whether they were capable of raising them or not, that child should be the focus. Of course I'm not advocating for sleepovers or anything to that extent but allowing a child to have a letter or know who their brothers and sisters are is important.
I have seen first hand how important it is for children to have contact with biological family even when they aren't the best people to raise them.
Adopted parents are their parents but they still have a connection and trauma that needs to be allowed to be dealt with and not blocked out to avoid disturbing adoptive parents ego.

Show quote history

Agree x100

OVienna · 31/12/2025 00:37

Bigoldsnitch · 31/12/2025 00:32

I'm just always warey of the narrative around adoption meaning that you no longer have to deal with birth parents so picked up on your permanent wording

For us it's only been about 6 years from AO until we are beginning to figure out what contact will look like

Not because of any court order but because that's clearly the direction our child is going in.
In some ways I would be relieved if there was a better frame work for pre 18 contact, and more service involvement. Instead in theory he's not having contact till 18, but the reality will be different.

Many times currently it's inherantly vulnerable teens alone working out people online, giving out details online, and making risky decisions they aren't developmental able to make because adopters aren't given the warning, or the structure for it

We were acutely aware it was a possibility because of my DW's own search, but found it often blind sides other adoptive parents who thought/ had been told that they wouldn't be dealing with it for years. If people don't want to consider it then they should be thinking twice about adopting anyway

In the same way as ivf clinics abroad still sell the idea that you can donate and be uncontactable for life when infact it's super easy to do dna tracing these days and has been for the last decade. Nothing wrong with that but let's be clear that it's not anonymous, so those donating and those receiving are clear on what they are signing up for

We need to make sure all adoptive parents are acutely aware there's a distinct possibility that birth parents will be having contact and that they will end up part of your family journey rather that promising they will be kept at bay til at least 18, or potentially permanently

Edited

Show quote history

Oh for sure. Ancestry et al has put paid to anonymity.

Allisnotlost1 · 31/12/2025 00:43

Carla786 · 31/12/2025 00:30

Re 'made up names' - if OP's kids had names like Renesmee or Loki there's a real risk of bullying. It's a bit unfair to assume she must have changed for snobbish reasons.

Show quote history

IIRC she mentioned they were ‘made up’ and ‘from a film’ rather than concerns about bullying. But also plenty of kids have unusual names. Obviously we don’t know the actual names in her situation but, using her examples, I don’t think they are any more likely to attract bullies than any other characteristic.

ZoeCM · 31/12/2025 00:45

Garroty · 30/12/2025 19:43

Adoption rates plummeting isn't a bad thing in and of itself. In an ideal world there would be no adoption. I know that sounds like a very cruel thing to say to adoptive parents, and of course I'm very glad that you have your children. But if things were perfect all children would be wanted by and safe with their birth families.

If it's the case that the same number of children are being given up for adoption but are not being adopted because prospective adopters are being put off, then that is something concerning. Is there research supporting that this is the case?

I'm happy to be corrected, but I'm fairly sure the number of children being removed from their parents hasn't fallen. It's just that more of them are spending their childhoods in the care system because there's a shortage of adoptive parents.

Supersimkin7 · 31/12/2025 00:46

In law the child’s best interests are the priority, not the child, and only for his or her vital interests as the law affects them.

The lending of this priority in the courtroom is a legal one-off to allow kids to be taken away from their owners ie birth parents, or resolve ugly divorce rows.

It’s not a kid’s supremacist charter.

A DCs best interests are, on the whole, served best by adoption. If you really cared about the child, you’d support adoptive parents & their views a bit more. If they’re being put off adopting, listen to them.

Kingsleadhat · 31/12/2025 00:51

It was presented us that ftf contact was a deal breaker. One of my kids used to vomit before meeting them, the other used to act out to put it mildly afterwards but we were still made to go ahead. I think it made attachment to us incredibly difficult and the children found it distressing. This was more than 20 years ago I'm surprised they are still doing it. The children are usually taken away because of neglect and abuse. If the child has been relinquished and there was no abuse involved ftf makes more sense. Eventually after years SS stopped the contact as one of the parents was behaving in a risky manner. The whole thing was damaging to us and more importantly the kids.

Supersimkin7 · 31/12/2025 00:58

I think we’re all agreed on the BP issue that reality overtook earnest SS discussions a good decade ago now.

DC can find their BP on their own in 5 min online should they wish.

I’d go with that quick win.

Iloveagoodnap · 31/12/2025 01:08

As a foster carer I can see both sides of the argument. Although it isn’t a rule, only a recommendation, I do think the thought of having to maintain contact with birth family might put some prospective adopters off. But I do think it’s important for children to grow up without a romanticised view of what their birth parents might be like, which they might have if they’ve never met them since they were tiny.

I’ve fostered two siblings for most of their childhoods. They’re now late teens. Being in foster care they have been supposed to have face to face contact with their mum regularly. All I will say is, they are now very aware of the person she is and I think they are better equipped for adulthood already knowing that.

Ikeatears · 31/12/2025 01:15

ThePieceHall · 30/12/2025 19:32

Such utter BS. Sorry. I don’t care that you’re a paediatrician. There is no ‘rule’ about direct contact with birth families. Sir Andrew McFarlane, the president of the Family Courts, is seeking to suggest about more ongoing direct contact with birth families for adopted children. I am an adopter of 18 years. My two adopted children are not birth related. My elder daughter, significant mental health issues, has never had any direct or indirect contact with her birth family. She has no sense of identity at all. Conversely, my AD2(9) has had regular, ongoing direct contact with her birth mother since her placement with me at 12-hours-old. Her birth mother is not a bad person. She is the victim of generations of abuse and neglect and social care failings. Birth mum is not the bogey woman. AD2 loves her, understands her vulnerabilities and is compassionate about BM’s difficulties in life. Equally, AD2 knows which side her bread is buttered on and knows that she is safer and has a better quality of life with me.

In my opinion, all adopted children should be privy to their narratives, however unpalatable they are to us. We are not ‘saviours’ as adopters. Our children have their genes and histories. If birth families are not dangerous, then why would contact be tricky?

Adoptee here and I agree with you. I didn’t have contact and traced later (bm at 16, bf at 42!)
There has been damage done through adoption and separation that cannot be undone. My adopted parents weren’t my saviours. They weren’t abusive and they loved me but I’m under no illusion that had they been able to conceive naturally, they wouldn’t have wanted me. I was the next best thing and no amount “we chose you” conversations change that.
they adopted because of what THEY wanted. Not because of what I needed. I needed to not feel guilty if I wanted to talk about my adoption or birth family, I needed to not hear how ‘lucky’ I was to have been adopted by them (not from them, from wider family and friends and never said maliciously). This is a narrative that many adoptees have heard, that we should somehow be grateful, in a way that biological children don’t need to be.
I don’t believe my name should have been changed. It was MY name. The only thing I had. If safeguarding is an issue (and I’m not so naive to believe that no birth parents pose a danger) then there should be a way to use an alias of some sort but which retains the right to access and use the original name. Nobody should have their name permanently stolen without consent.
I don’t speak for all adoptees but I am also aware that there are many who feel like I do.
The system seems better than when I was a child and support for the whole triad seems better but there is still a long, long way to go.
I have a family that I was born into. I don’t have a romanticised view of them just as I don’t of my adoptive family but they are still my family, we share DNA and physical and psychological traits and nobody, not another adoptee, not my adoptive family and certainly not the state can tell me that they aren’t.

ADHDdiagnosis · 31/12/2025 02:11

I work in this field but I have never thought about this aspect of adoption as being a negative thing. This is a very interesting discussion and clearly needs exploring by policy makers.

I do think that contact with birth families is often more for the benefit of the adults rather than being in the child’s best interests. For example during periods of foster care, the frequency of contact can be very stressful for the children.

I’ve never thought about open adoption plans as actually discouraging families from adopting. I hope this will be studied further. There are too many children without loving families and we need to make sure that idealistic goals are not actually harmful.

thank you for the thread it’s very interesting.

Chattanoogachoo · 31/12/2025 04:00

A friend has fostered a child since she was a baby.Her birth mother has v limited contact but has specified that she requires her child to be brought up as a Catholic.She doesn't practice the faith herself but the child cannot be adopted by non Catholics.Friend has attended Catholic services with the child ,drives her 10 miles across the city every morning to attend a Catholic school but cannot adopt her as she is not Catholic.
It's heartbreaking for this family and just so destructive.

Carla786 · 31/12/2025 04:08

TheRocksStoppedRolling · 30/12/2025 23:31

I think it’s a case of biology mattering a lot more to some people than others like to admit. Look how many people keep some level of contact with awful bio parents and siblings just because it’s family. Biological bond isn’t really explainable but it is often very strong, especially the bond between parent and child, even when it isn’t a great relationship.

I do think we’re very good at saying families come in all shapes and sizes, which they do, but people like to tell that to themselves to make themselves feel like they’re doing right. They often are, but biology can’t be ignored like many like to do.

Show quote history

This

Carla786 · 31/12/2025 04:10

Ikeatears · 31/12/2025 01:15

Adoptee here and I agree with you. I didn’t have contact and traced later (bm at 16, bf at 42!)
There has been damage done through adoption and separation that cannot be undone. My adopted parents weren’t my saviours. They weren’t abusive and they loved me but I’m under no illusion that had they been able to conceive naturally, they wouldn’t have wanted me. I was the next best thing and no amount “we chose you” conversations change that.
they adopted because of what THEY wanted. Not because of what I needed. I needed to not feel guilty if I wanted to talk about my adoption or birth family, I needed to not hear how ‘lucky’ I was to have been adopted by them (not from them, from wider family and friends and never said maliciously). This is a narrative that many adoptees have heard, that we should somehow be grateful, in a way that biological children don’t need to be.
I don’t believe my name should have been changed. It was MY name. The only thing I had. If safeguarding is an issue (and I’m not so naive to believe that no birth parents pose a danger) then there should be a way to use an alias of some sort but which retains the right to access and use the original name. Nobody should have their name permanently stolen without consent.
I don’t speak for all adoptees but I am also aware that there are many who feel like I do.
The system seems better than when I was a child and support for the whole triad seems better but there is still a long, long way to go.
I have a family that I was born into. I don’t have a romanticised view of them just as I don’t of my adoptive family but they are still my family, we share DNA and physical and psychological traits and nobody, not another adoptee, not my adoptive family and certainly not the state can tell me that they aren’t.

Edited

Show quote history

This

Carla786 · 31/12/2025 04:12

Supersimkin7 · 31/12/2025 00:46

In law the child’s best interests are the priority, not the child, and only for his or her vital interests as the law affects them.

The lending of this priority in the courtroom is a legal one-off to allow kids to be taken away from their owners ie birth parents, or resolve ugly divorce rows.

It’s not a kid’s supremacist charter.

A DCs best interests are, on the whole, served best by adoption. If you really cared about the child, you’d support adoptive parents & their views a bit more. If they’re being put off adopting, listen to them.

Owners? I wouldn't use that word...

In law the child’s best interests are the priority, not the child - can you elaborate on this, please?

Carla786 · 31/12/2025 04:18

Allisnotlost1 · 31/12/2025 00:43

IIRC she mentioned they were ‘made up’ and ‘from a film’ rather than concerns about bullying. But also plenty of kids have unusual names. Obviously we don’t know the actual names in her situation but, using her examples, I don’t think they are any more likely to attract bullies than any other characteristic.

Show quote history

True...looking at later post, she said ' My eldest has a derivative of his birth name (Which was a completely made up name). Social care supported it as it wasn't a real name so was very traceable.'

I get changing re tracing concerns. Film - I agree that's different. I suppose re the example OP gave I know that on Twilight forums a lot of fans made fun of Renesmee's name. But ofc that's not true for most fantasy-type characters.

Carla786 · 31/12/2025 04:22

the7Vabo · 30/12/2025 21:39

Well are they adopting for the right reasons in that case? Infertility is the most awful thing for anyone to go through but adoption isn’t the cure.

Adoption should be about the child not a solution for whatever the adoptive parents are dealing with.

Show quote history

Exactly.

Luciasblockbusternovel · 31/12/2025 04:37

If birth parents are fundamentally capable but experiencing temporary issues the child would be fostered.

For a child to be up for adoption the birth parenting must have been extremely poor or the child was not wanted., thus the birth parents have given up their rights. The wellbeing of that child and the new adoptive parents is the focus.

Iloveagoodnap · 31/12/2025 04:43

Chattanoogachoo · 31/12/2025 04:00

A friend has fostered a child since she was a baby.Her birth mother has v limited contact but has specified that she requires her child to be brought up as a Catholic.She doesn't practice the faith herself but the child cannot be adopted by non Catholics.Friend has attended Catholic services with the child ,drives her 10 miles across the city every morning to attend a Catholic school but cannot adopt her as she is not Catholic.
It's heartbreaking for this family and just so destructive.

In which country? Because that doesn’t sound like English foster care. When I chose the secondary school of the kids I foster it was my decision. I did speak to the birth parents as a courtesy but I had no input from social services as to which school to choose. And as far as I know the baby I fostered and moved on to adoption went to a family purely chosen by social services and the birth parents had absolutely no say in the type of family she went to.

TealSapphire · 31/12/2025 05:34

No matter the 'better names', money and lifestyle the OP's children have, they will naturally be drawn to their biological family. All children want to know their family and birth parents.

I get that would make you insecure as an adoptive parent, but it's a fact. I also doubt that the children's birth parent is after OP's money.