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 dropped out the process because of this, so you are correct

Is this definitely true?

@Popcornhero said:

‘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.’

I do wonder if this 4 months old baby (14 month old has been in care for a year) is still having contact or expected to have contact? If so except for any primal wound (Nancy Verrier) what memory does he have? What strong bond does he have?

It’s shocking to think a newborn baby cannot get adopted.

Maybe ivf and donors have reduced the desire to adopt? And if so why? Babies from donor eggs still have someone else’s DNA. What do studies show on the desire of a donor egg or sperm or both to need to know their story and history? Why do they not need a life story book to understand why their hair is blonde and eyes a greeny colour when their parents have brown hair and blue eyes? Or why they are extrovert and their parents are introvert? Or they end up wearing glasses and their parents have great vision? If heritage and contact is so vital to so many adoptees what is offered to babies born from donor eggs and sperm, IF they want contact prior to 18? And if this is never an option why? They may too have a fairy tale romantic idea of their donors?

A quick google on surrogacy using AI threw up this:

Most surrogates report high levels of happiness regarding the communication and frequency of contact with the intended parents throughout their journey, although one surrogate expressed being "very unhappy" with these aspects immediately after the birth. The legal framework does not mandate contact, but the emotional and relational dynamics often support continued relationships, especially in cases involving family or friends.

Not any info on whether the child wanted contact or was settled and happy just the happiness of the surrogate post relinquishment.

HEFA website says:

Issues related to identity, learning that you are donor-conceived as a young person or adult, and managing relationships with both your family and your donor’s family are common among donor-conceived individuals.

Is it the fact that surrogates and egg/sperm donors are seen as a better option than adoption due to the lack of contact expected (donors). What studies show children from donor eggs and sperm don’t need a ‘life story book’ ? HEFA say children from donor eggs /sperm experience issues with identity. If contact and life story etc is the true reason behind adoption contact (rather than being birth parent focused) then why is this not an option for children from donors?

Hefa states - The information you may be able to find out includes:

• physical description (height, weight, eye, hair and skin colour)
• their year of birth
• their ethnicity
• whether they had any children at the time of donation
• any additional information they chose to supply such as their occupation, religion, interests and a brief self-description
• If you used a donor before the law on donor anonymity changed, whether they have agreed to share their identity with people conceived from their donation when they turn 18.

Please note we will remove any information that could identify the donor.

I find this odd if it’s genuinely the CHILD who is the centre of process. Especially when HEFA remind the readers that a child conceived from a donor may have more than 20 genetically linked siblings. This also throws up a concern about accidentally having a sexual relationship as a teen or adult with a relative. I know birth parents could have in excess of 20 children (especially fathers) but I doubt there are many. With donors it’s easier (and noted as a possibility on the website).

I also read - Research suggests that some donor-conceived individuals feel it is important to know identifying information about their donors, though motivations may extend beyond genetics, such as a desire to understand health history or personal identity. Some children may never be interested in learning more about their biological background, while others may develop curiosity at different stages of life.

This seems very similar to adoptees comments on this thread. Some want life history and contact and others don’t. So why are the approaches so different for adoptees and children from donated eggs and sperm especially when so many children having more than 20 half siblings they don’t know are related seems, to me, to be mindblowing for someone who wants contact. And for an only child how exciting would it be to know you may have 19 siblings out there. Surely there is still the risk of internet contact especially between siblings? (It is warned that a child may contact the donor prior to 18):

It’s also possible that someone could unintentionally or intentionally piece together publicly available information and find out or work out your identity and, perhaps, work out that you donated, using information that’s available outside of the HFEA’s carefully managed system of releasing donor information. This could happen, for example if they or one of their close genetic relatives has used a home DNA testing kit, opted in to matching services and then has been matched with you or close genetic relatives of yours.

And if life story work is so vital for all adoptees why are the life stories not even an option for these children who may have 2 biological parents and over 20 half siblings to connect with?

I knew little about donor eggs and sperm until this. And for those posters who say an adopted child doesn’t belong to the adoptive parents. Does a child born from donor eggs belong? As genetically they are unrelated?

I am playing devils advocate but a donor conceived child is being deliberately brought into the world by the authorities/doctors and adults (parents/donors) who know some children want to know their life story for their own wellbeing. If this requirement is so vital that adoptees are expected to have contact for their emotional well being then it’s odd, to me, that we would choose to create children to fulfil adults desire to have children and not give them access to life story books and contact centres etc.

Is it that the process of growing the child in your womb that is the difference?
Or the fact there isn’t a birth parents wanting contact?
Or the profits made by medical companies?

The birth certificate presumably shows mother as the person who gave birth not the genetic mother. Is there a second birth certificate with correct biological information on it (like adoptees have a birth certificate and one post adoption). It suggests to me the womb is the difference then? Which is interesting.

It seems to be very adult focused as:
The hefa website says that - By using donated eggs, she has the option of using her partner’s sperm (if she has one) and of experiencing pregnancy.

So they acknowledge a woman’s desire to have the experience of being pregnant.

Also by donating you can get reduced fertility treatment costs. So there is an option to donate eggs to save money.

This doesn’t seem Child Focused when compared to the requirements for adoptees and maybe explains why people don’t adopt. As they want to see the unrelated chikd as their own without interference.

I really hope the 14 month olds finds adoptive parents.

Sorry it’s so long but it made more sense with quotes.

@SummerBreeze1980

Sorry when I ask is it true I meant contact if it’s only in the child’s interests? I am sorry about your friends experience and am not questioning that at all! I can’t edit as I’ve left it too long. Sorry

It is possible to adopt a baby. These days it can be done via ‘foster to adopt’. (My DSis and DBIL did this when adopting their youngest, the older siblings are bio DC).

But I think a lot of prospective adopters would be put off by the fact that it is genuinely fostering initially and you have to accept that the baby might yet go back to live with the birth mum or extended family. You also have to go to contact at that stage.

This wasn’t so much of an issue for my DSis and DBIL, as their DS was a relinquished baby. (He’s 10 now.)

Did he have to have contact as a relinquished baby?

He had only one contact, where his birth mum came to say goodbye. It was very sad, but she really couldn’t keep him, she was a struggling single mum with older DC with additional needs. She never said who the birth father was.

I don’t know whether it was actually required, but my DSis was happy to do it.

As an adoptee myself, that sounds so very painful.

Under those circumstances, I can see staying in touch with the birth family, she doesn't seem a risk in any way from what you've posted.

But honestly, I don't think I would have viewed my adoptive family the same way - I would have continued to think of the mother who gave me up as my 'real' mother.

There is a lot of wishful thinking on this thread, IMO.

It's not an easy situation and there won't be a one sized fits all for adoptees.

And the heart of it, fundamentally, are circumstances which I am sorry to say, at a very minimum started out as very sad for everyone involved.

You're basically trying to give everyone the best opportunity to turn the sadness to joy? But I really do not believe that some of these contact suggestions, which come across as half way houses (if not totally batshit under some circs) won't cause different problems, even as they - may - address others.

No, there wouldn’t be an issue in his birth mum staying in touch, knowing my DSis she would have been prepared to facilitate contact, I’m sure. But sadly, the birth mum had no interest in any contact at all. That will be very difficult for my DNephew to come to terms with, I’m sure. But he is fully bonded with his adoptive family. He has of course been with them since he was a newborn.

It’s a completely different situation with my ADs, as contact wasn’t recommended due to the volatility of their birth parents at the time (there was domestic violence involved). Now there will hopefully be the possibility of direct contact for AD1 and I’m hoping things will work out for it to happen.

It’s a completely different story with AD2. She wants information on her birth family, not contact, but at the same time she’s turned against my DH and me emotionally because we’re not her real parents as she sees it. (That’s a long story which I’ve talked about elsewhere, on the adoption thread.)

It’s inevitable of course that our ADs will have a strong sense of their identity, as they grew up together as birth siblings. We’ve been very happy to encourage that.

I have an immense problem with the idea that I must do things to make my DCs see me as their "real parent" and that these would include not seeing their birth family.
I would feel I had failed them if I cut off contact in order to place myself more in the centre of their lives. I went into this expecting it wouldn't be like parenting birth children. Unfortunately for them, their lives will never be the same as birth children.

Respectfully, you are not seeing it from the point of view of the adoptee, you are seeing it from your position. In a way that is meaning to be kind, I appreciate.

The reasons for not maintaining contact with the birth family or limiting it can occur for reasons specific to the adoptee's circumstances and not first and foremost related to the adoptive parent placing themselves front and centre in the adoptee's life.

As their parent, though, I took advice from adoptees when they were too little to do that, and now I judge their response and their questions.
I cannot as I say make their lives the same as birth children of mine and I see one of the main reasons on this thread for not having contact as being "because then you aren't like birth children".

I fully take on board safeguarding issues BUT I do not believe they are unsurmountable in the majority of cases (for our DCs they existed in the same way as for many others - the only factor we did not have is malevolence on the part of birth mum - we did have unknown or possible malevolence on the part of birth dad but we were able to work round that by putting in additional safeguarding). I really feel like many adoptive parents start from the POV that "I'm the only mum" and then work from there to "therefore I'm thinking up reasons not to allow contact".

I believe that when children are small, too small to make a decision, just like we start from a position of "they should never remember hearing they were adopted" we should start from the position of "they shouldn't remember their first meeting with birth family". I also know that many adoptees think this too.

Yeah, there are a range of views from adoptees on this, including on this thread.

But I get what you're saying: I really feel like many adoptive parents start from the POV that "I'm the only mum" and then work from there to "therefore I'm thinking up reasons not to allow contact".

There are people like this, many fewer than there were though.

Another poster talked about anonymous donation of eggs and sperm - this is the new frontier for that sort of thinking.

Many, not all of course, believe the adoptive parents are the only parents.

as an adoptor and I dont know any fellow adoptor who feels like that. We all want to do what is best for our children.and for some that involves direct contact ( in our case ) and in others it doesn't.
I think the narrative of wanting to pretend the adoption.never happened is very much outdated in this day and age.
I also think.that no.matter what adoptive parents do there will be people out to criticise their choices. They are held to a standard of parenting that others dont have to adhere to lot of the time. Hence the amount of adoptors blamed for all.the ills if an adoptive family starts to.struggle and being threatened with prosecution for abandonment if it all crashes and burns.

It is asking awful lot from an adopted child to expect them to attach to new parents while also in contact with birth parents. It's a huge ask for DC to leave birth family then leave FC family and trust another set of adults will be there forever, anyway; it's an even bigger one to expect them to do that whilst having direct contact. Which is what you'd be expecting if you are aiming for not remembering first meeting with birth family.

My DD was 5 at placement. She had clear memories of living with BM until age 3 1/2, and of the times BM turned up to contact, and had a good attachment to FC. I don't know how she would have managed if direct contact had been expected while she slowly and cautiously let us in.

But we know that toddlers attach to nursery carers as well as their parents - I'm not sure there's any research suggesting children need to be abandoned by one carer to attach to another. And generally in the situation you are talking about the child would be well attached to the foster carer and seeing the parent for occasional visits. Nobody thinks a child shouldn't see grandparents every few months in case they don't become attached to their parents.

But in those examples of toddlers attaching to nursery carers or grandparents, the DC would already have their primary attachment to their parents. Whereas adopted children have to build that attachment to their parents from scratch on a background of damaged and difficult attachment history. So it's really not comparing like with like.

My eldest found it easier initially to form a relationship with her grandmother than with me, the grandmother role had been a lot less confusing or frightening to her than the mother role had been in her life experience and so was less risky for her. If you'd also added in direct contact with BM it would have been so much harder for her. We always spoke about FC and about how we would be visiting FC soon from the start (and did visit for the first time I think about 6 months in), there was no question of expecting her to abandon or be abandoned by a safe and loving care giver. But I really believe an expectation of direct contact with BM would have made it so much harder for her to attach.

We expect such a huge leap of faith from small children who have had little reason to trust adults, on placing them for adoption. I don't think we should do anything which makes the task they have, to attach to a family, any more difficult than it already is. I really believe my eldest may have found it impossible with direct contact.

In my real life I have ‘my mum’ and ‘the person who gave birth to me’ My mum is my one and only mum. She brought me up and did everything a mum does. The person who gave birth to me did just that - and I thank her for that and for not opting for a termination.

Mu parents didn’t pretend it hadn’t happened, they let me bring it up on my terms. The idea of not remembering the first meeting is interesting and I can see how that may work for some. I grew up always knowing I was adopted and that worked for me.

But I’ve never met my birth family (I’m using that for ease and clarity on this thread as I don’t call them that in real life btw as they are not my family - they are the people who gave birth to me - not factually correct as men don’t give birth but I find everything else clumsier).

I was also adopted and my experience sounds very similar, I completely agree with every word.

yes, I found that quite a shitty thing to say. The woman who gave birth to me isn’t irrelevant ffs!

@OVienna

I agree. My appreciation about lack of contact isn’t about my mum and dad and how they feel about themselves. Maybe it’s is selfish but it is all about me.

My photos and memories are very precious to me. And I am glad they were not shared without my consent. I appreciate I am not as concise as other posters but what I wrote up thread summarises how I feel (I have added a few bits).

Adults who were deemed incapable of looking after me or chose not to look after me and had no prior relationship to my family are strangers. I really don’t want a load of random people to even have my photos. It’s why we advise people to be careful posting pics online.

Maybe the birth family will share them with others, maybe they won’t - we don’t know them from Adam. Maybe they will doctor them, or hand to a peodophile new boyfriend or post them online themselves with loving or weird comments. Maybe the new partner will laugh at me or my mum and dad or my siblings. Maybe they will say my dress is ugly or my beautiful birthday cake is awful. Or say they would have pierced my ears by now. Or dressed me differently. Maybe joke about my siblings or my pet. Maybe they will print off photos and frame them and treat them with respect. Or show friends proudly. Or use them to grieve. Or build a shrine. Maybe they never bother to download the my family website thing. Photos are my images of my life. My information, school reports, my behaviour , my likes and dislikes, my worries and fears, my successes annd achievements are private. I do not see the people as relatives. They have no right to my pictures or my information unless I choose to share them myself when I know the full risks of giving them that data. They are not my family. I have a right to a private family life. I have no desire for them to get weekly/monthly/annual updates about what I have been doing. Just like I have no right to get a weekly/monthly/annual updates on their life and what they are doing well/not so well.

It’s intrusive. They gave up the window into my life due to relinquishment or neglect and I am glad the window and doors were pulled shut and the curtains closed allowing me to become the person I am today.

I am also glad they were respectful enough to not track me down. My thoughts of them are good. Now that may be wrong - they may be terrible people - but I’m okay thinking they are good people. They did good things (left me alone 😁, didn’t terminate me - I appreciate both).

I am glad they don’t have my pictures, letters and info. I hope they have their own lovely precious memories and photos - I have no right to those either.

Let's be honest, it is currently fashionable to think keeping an adopted child in touch with their birth family is better for them. Two generations ago, we thought it was kinder to keep adoption a secret. These things have fashions.

There is, of course, more research evidence about the harms that are done to adopted children. There is far less about what good practice looks like, let alone funding for that practice. In most cases, the contact arrangements are made long before the child can have a voice.

I think we are right to err slightly on the side of indirect contact being often beneficial, direct contact sometimes beneficial, but some on this thread feel that contact should happen unless there are extraordinary reasons not to. I don't think we can assert that with confidence.

It's important to remember that at the point most contact arrangements are made the children are very young. By the time the impact is becoming clear the people who know the child best are the adoptive parents. Of course some adoptive parents are monsters, but most are not 'selfish' but doing their best, often the only advocate for their child's needs.

For the record, I happily agreed to letterbox contact and also to meet with the birth mum. It didn't happen because birth mum didnt turn up to repeated appointments and birth dad wanted to stab me. Given that none of them, or their families, visited my dd during the two months she was in hospital coming off heroin, Im not convinced contact would ever have worked.

@Ketzele
I think it is wrong to call contact being a fashion that has changed in two generations.

Two generations ago, babies were taken from young, single mothers, whose only crime was shaming their family by getting pregnant out of wedlock. Infertile married people could pretend the child was born to them and were told that only nurture counted, not nature.The only criteria to adopt was to be married and attend church, no in-depth checks.

Adoption is an entirely different entity now - all parts of the triangle are different. I agree that it would be very difficult to have contact with many birth families - your adopted child was taken away from drugs and violence. I admire people who adopt now with all the challenges it brings.