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?

We have done letterbox every 6 months for close to 20 years.
What is more is we have replies every time.

I think 'forced adoption' is a loaded term as it makes people think of unmarried mothers in the 60s having their new born wrenched from their arms.

'Court ordered adoption' would maybe be more neutral and accurate for those who have come through the care system. Adoption is deemed the 'least bad' option in cases where the courts are involved.

I have to agree. I’m not adopted but I have 2 good friends who are and was involved in their journey to find their birth parents and understand who they are and where they came from.

I find OP’s narrative troubling - we saved ‘our’ kids from their traumatic working class background, renamed them Ophelia and Henry - and now they’re ‘protected’ and will have a ‘better chance’. As if you could simply re-brand children like that.

My experience of name changes is adopters change names to more middle class ones, the sort they would have given their birth child. They want their kid to fit in name wise with those of children in the family and friendship group.

I would advise adopters that if they don't like a child's name then they aren't the right child for them.

I have known of adopters start calling children by different names and try to hide it from professionals. Or just put a new name on the court application form. Or do as OP did and change it afterwards by deed poll because they knew the professionals wouldn't agree it.

There's a lot of demonisation of birth parents on this thread. Most birth parents aren't a risk. Often they literally do not have the skills or resources to try to find children. Low educational and literacy levels, poor IT skills and so on. Unable to read maps, plan journeys... addiction, poor mental health, learning needs. Cycles of donestic violence, sexual abuse victimes. Many don't leave their local area even to go to the town centre. Poor coping mechanisms, poor childhoods, poor resilience and struggle to function and look after themselves. I have known of birth parents who have learnt by accident where their child is and done nothing because they already feel so shitty and inadequate they don't want to make problems for the child. Or seen them in a shopping centre and just frozen. They treasure the letters and don't want to lose them. I've known birth parents can't face writing back for years, and then maybe 6 years later they feel ready to. I've known some ring up for advice because the child has found them on social media and they know it's not appropriate and want help with the situation and for soneone to let the adoptets know.

Being unable to care 24/7 for a child doesn't make them a danger full stop. Very few have a history of stalking, harrassment, violence. Most haven't made issues for the foster carers or tried to find the child or follow them home from contact. Most haven't made threats or been aggressive to anyone - social worker, midwife etc.

I'd advise adopters take up meeting with birth parents early on (without the child) so they know who they are writing to and understand the risks. Overwhelmingly adopters say they feel sorry for birth parents after meeting them. If birth parents are a risk a child would be placed out of area and a face to face meeting wouldn't be advised. Yes there is the odd horror story but professionals know who those individuals are, and the parents who are actually a risk are in the minority.

Yes, exactly this. Yes decisions need to be made on a case by case basis, but even then it can only ever be guesswork what will actually be best for that child. Unfortunately that guess is sometimes catastrophically wrong but knowing what the right lesson to draw from it when it goes really wrong is incredibly hard.

Nothing working class about the majority of birth parents. Many have not worked a day in their lives. As an adoptee I’m pleased that the hideous name I was destined to be shackled to forever (think Pebbles) was confined to history by my very working class adoptive parents. Seriously, how many of you posters so concerned about name changes can honestly say you would want to be saddled with such a name? Your posts honestly come off as performative middle class concern.

Absolute rubbish. I’m very glad my working class adoptive parents had the good sense to change my name. Endlessly grateful. Would you like to be called ‘Pebbles’?

At the end of the day, we all have things that potentially hold us back in life. It’s not fashionable, but as an adoptee I’ve honestly found it better to think that no one’s life is perfect and that, adopted or not, we all face difficulties in life. Donning a victim mentality and seeing everything through a lense of ‘woe is me’ is not generally helpful for anyone.

As to birth parents being demonised, frankly, from what I’ve witnessed they are generally treated with too much kindness and understanding. These are people, many of whom, place their own wants, desires, needs, addictions, relationships etc in front to the needs of their children. Many adoptees are rightly not impressed by this.

You think it'd be better for children to not be adopted until they're secondary school age?? How is that in the nest interests of the child? Children need and deserve to know their family is their family forever, that their parents won't stop being their parents no matter what.

Do you also refer to 'forced' divorce?

it’s so complicated but my name was changed and thank goodness. As for whether it was a middle class ‘rebrand’ well it conferred neutrality and I was the first in my working class adoptive family to go to uni etc.

Name changing isn't about rebranding children as more middle class. It's about a child called Dersdhua'mari-Jade (not far off some of the names I've seen) being a) easy to find online and b) sticking out fron their peers and being hampered by their name.

Birth parents who've had multiple children removed and made no changes so will have the child of their next pregnancy removed too have been known to give unusual names so they can more easily be plastered over 'stolen children ' websites and found by well meaning clueless people who believe they are removed from loving parents for no reason. My eldest was taught nursery rhymes with the words changed to names and addresses of birth family in the hope she would remember them. Changing name isn't neutral but it should be done when needed for the best interests of the child.

Just as a counterbalance, and absolutely no criticism of you implied, my elder adopted daughter is unlikely to go to university due to her in utero exposure to drugs and alcohol which have left her with several complex disabilities. The reality of contemporary adoption is that the vast majority of adoptive children will have been exposed to the toxic trio of drugs, alcohol and domestic abuse.

Absolutely! Also the first in my working class adoptive family to go to Uni.

My concern is based on the experiences of my friends who were adopted into middle class families and found it hard.

One friend had her name changed, which she found upsetting as she was older and liked her birth name. Another was adopted with her brother, and both choose to keep their own names which they always felt was very important to their identity.

Name changing is such a difficult thing isn’t it. We had to change our sons, luckily he had a very neutral middle name, so lets say he was originally called Skeletor James Jones, he is now called James Skeletor Jones Smith. And yes, Skeletor is on the same level as his name. It isn’t something we hide though, so in reality he kind of goes by both and will answer to both, but if he has to write his name etc for the moment he picks James.

Most people have something in life they find hard- that’s life. Life becomes easier once you realise you are not defined by being a victim and take back your power. In regards to changing names, would your friend have liked to go through life being called Pebbles? Would you have liked to go through life being called Pebbles? Or, was it indeed sensible to change that name?

I think a letter once a year is more than generous. It means that if the child wants to contact their bio parent one day, the person will have some idea of what they’ve been up to for 18 years. However, I think the children’s needs have to be put first and they need to fully embrace their new family and not have split loyalties. What if their bio family try and guilt trip them and say how much they want them back?

I don’t think it’s difficult at all. More a matter of common sense. I like what you did with the names here as it was in the very best interests of your child.

And many in the past also. My birth mother was also an alcoholic and a drug addict.

I am sorry you find my points offensive. I am well aware that many adopted people do extremely well as do lots of children in care or living with domestic abuse or substance use at home. However many also stuggle. Due to my work I do tend to have more contact with families where it is not working out so well so my view may be biased.

Who is defining anyone as a victim?

I find the whole ‘take your power back’ shtick to be superficial psychologising - what does that even mean?

I can’t say “Pebbles” bothers me, but then everyone’s different and that’s rather the point. There’s not one size fits all for every adoptee.

I have seen care proceedings drag on and on, it's maybe the 4th or 7th child, others were adopted or gone to relatives and it seems clear cut that adoption is the only viable plan because changes can't be made and the relatives can't take any more on. But the legislation says adoption is (rightly) a last resort and everything possible must be tried to keep a child with the family. So child number 7 gets the same as child number 1, even if the children were all born close together and nothing has changed. To get to court in the first place the local authority will already have assessed parents and realised them caring for the child isn't viable. Ideally the parents would just accept they can't do it and that would be that, but they don't and the courts don't call time when they should. In my experience it's often the judges, independent social workers and cafcass guardians who are really pro parents, or their drug and mental health workers. Not the LA who have worked with these parents - and often the extended family - for years, assessed them several times and know how the story ends.

I know some older adoptees so they are well through most of their lives and their experiences have been positive, lovely women. But they were adopted at a time when lots of babies were removed from young single women as it was still shameful to be born out of wedlock, no actual problems.

I have met a few women through voluntary work who have had children removed against their will, the majority because they refused to give up their violent partners. I still say the best Mother I have ever met was a woman who willingly gave up her children and understood fully that she absolutely could not look after them becuse of her severe mental health issues and vulnerabilities. She had a level of understanding when well that meant she became distressed she had behaved in a way that was damaging to her children when unwell.

There is a shocking level of ignorance throughout this thread, most of which comes I suspect from people who aren't adopters or adopted and have zero experience with adoption or social services.

I can't go through it and highlight every single assertion that has been posted with confidence but is simply incorrect - I'd be here forever.

All I can do is plead with those who are considering adoption to disregard basically everything in this thread and if you're interested, speak to an agency or a reputable professional to understand what the situation is actually like, rather than listen to the rumours, half truths or total idiots here.

Everything in adoption is done in the best interest of the child. There are numerous studies that highlight the importance of some form of ongoing contact with birth parents after an adoptive placement, be that in person or via letter, where it is safe to do so. It isn't something that has been made up by someone somewhere to inconvenience adoptive parents. A quick internet search wil find some of these studies.

The best thing you can do when thinking about adoption is ignore the views of people who know nothing about it - which is almost everyone posting here.

I'm a foster parent and fostering can be very long term. I've had DFS since he was 5 and he's now 19 1/2. I wanted to adopt him but his birth parents made a fuss and blocked it. They had access to contact once every 8 weeks. Mum has visited him 3 times during his life but overdosed on drugs just before his GCSE's and Dad visited if SS gave him a train warant and I collected him from train station took him somewhere nice for day including paying for his entrance fees, buying his lunch, drinks ice cream etc. or else he wouldn't come. Even then he'd only turn up about every third planned visit. He wouldn't tell us he wasn't coming so I would be at station waiting. FS would get upset. It was dreadful then we had COVID and no contact. After that FS said he didn't want to see them anymore because they were just strangers to him. FS has been happier since no contact and he's now doing well at university.

To be fair, there are several adopters posting here. I would argue that we are among the experts on contemporary adoption. Plus our children and young people.

There are also many adoptees on this thread who agree that contact with birth parents wasn’t helpful or wanted. Forcing me to see a very emotional woman who I had no memory of or connection to is actually one of my earliest unpleasant memories.