AIBU to think adopted children need a mother figure?

[Bertiebiscuit]

Men should not be allowed to adopt children. All children need a mother.

That's an awful saying lessons will be learned

How many bloody times must they say it. How many more children will be harmed or killed before they learn.

They didn't even listen to the foster mother of Preston. She was concerned but ignored. We hear it all the time

Fuck, yes, to all of this!

Plus, let’s have a children’s minister who has a scooby.

And when you are in abject crisis and your PASW goes off sick for 6 months (because working in adoption is too stressful), give the family another worker don’t just ghost them.

Don’t pretend that NVR is the solution to extreme child-on-parent violence and abuse.

Give adopted children access to UNIVERSAL services like CAMHS rather than passing them on to the crappy RAAs like hot potatoes.

Plus, when adopted teens reach adulthood, don’t deprive them of the packages of support that long-term fostered young people by tying yourself up in knots to claim that they’re not officially care leavers.

They did not do their job properly. What an insult to the baby.
He was taken to hospital 3 times under their care and none under the foster mothers care. She raised concerns. They stopped her seeing him. What kind of a person dosent investigate this. She knows Preston the best .
Full and thorough checks should have been done on him after he'd been to hospital for one thing .

No, it is pragmatic.
Children are hurt by staying with birth families too long.
Occasional 'bad apples' get through fostering and adoption screening.
Chances to protect children are missed by overstretched social workers and non joined up services.

But children are also harmed if taken into care unnecessarily.

And children in care who would benefit from adoption and a forever family are harmed by not receiving this if not enough potential parents are identified.

This is a human based system where social services, medical professionals and the courts have people's lives in their hands. Sometimes inaction in harmful, but action can be harmful too. They just won't get it right 100% of the time.

You think a traumatised child can discern between “getting to know you” and “you’re reuniting”? After 9 years and now teenage my two have a visceral reaction to a social worker appearing at the door because at a very instinctive level they think they’re going back to their birth mum. Trauma in infancy and early years isn’t healed because the child’s geography changes.

A "harsh, sterile life in care" isn't how the care system works these days. The only children in homes are in very small homes with maybe six kids, say. They will be there because they can't live in a foster home. Other children are in long term foster placements, where they are often treated like one of the family.

The thing with long term care though is it ends at 18/21.
Ideally with adoption the family support the child well into adulthood just as you would birth children.
Imagine telling your birth children at 18 'that's it, off you go, nice knowing you' and then not being there on the phone or in person through relationships, work, health, babies, achievements for the rest of your life.

Ok, that sounds like children could be perfectly happy in that environment and still know who their biological parents are?

Most children in care still have ongoing contact with their birth family. They are often removed at an older age. It isn't always lovely and of course support comes to an end eventually and children can have to move placements at a moment's notice. It's not the same as a permanent family - i was more taking issue with the idea that it's sterile.

Apologies for my mum dying when I was young. I must have grown into a shitty person... again apologies for this

I am talking about situations where the biological parents just couldn"t manage for whatever reason, not situations where the children are fearful of going back to their parents, in the past you would hear about children taken into care because the parents or parent just couldn"t cope but the children were desperate to get back to their real parents.

Adopted children do generally have knowledge / some form of contact with birth parents. Direct contact goes in and out of favour as seeing the reality can be disrupting short term but longer term beneficial, or not.

But the main thing in my view is adoption gives stability, normality, permanence, security, and ideally lasts for always not just to adulthood.

My eldest visibly relaxed once we had the court order and she knew that was all settled.

Where in the world do you live where care-experienced children and young people live in such lovely settings? Have you read about looked-after children having to go into unregulated accommodation or b&bs because of a dearth of suitable placements? Or having to present as homeless to their LA to find a bed for the night? There is a dearth of foster placements, a dearth of prospective adopters, a dearth of suitable accommodation. But an army of armchair experts on MN who know exactly how the care system works. And how lovely it is.

Yes, that was just a turn of phrase in response to a poster who said that gay, lesbian, single and unmarried adopters are needed because there are not enough people in general interested in adoption, my take was that if they want basically anyone to adopt there must be a reason for this, and the reason must be that a home with someone is better than the care system, but you seem to be saying that this isn"t the case?

Makes sense, we make ourselves a lot of what we are after a certain age.

Children just want familiarity. Many children want to go back to their birth parents even when there has been horrific abuse. It's all they've ever known, and an abuser isn't always abusive. There will likely be many positive memories they have of their abuser, too.

Umm... Elton John and his husband?

Yes, but I know of examples, from years ago to be fair, where the dad had left or was away a lot working or whatever and the mum was just drunk a lot, the only "abuse" was emotional distance and not being able or bothered to run a household, the children could go to a foster family and have the situation explained as they grow up and still see their mother from time to time without any big drama or danger to the children?

Jeez, what an unpleasant comment that totally lacks any empathy.

Yes, but also a father figure. I don't believe in lesbian couples having children and no father figure.

Not at all the same. Children that have lost a mother through ill health or accident will feel the lose of their mother but children who were given up will suffer with rejection.

There are a number of people pontificating on this thread who seem to know zilch about modern adoption, the care system etc, who are looking for superficial solutions to very complex problems. I think i will try to leave them to it.

You know the threshold for social worker involvement is that a child has experienced significant harm, or is likely to. The threshold for removal is much higher. Children coming into care have experienced real harm at the hands of their parents, if someone is struggling to cope there’s a whole raft of supports in place before care can be considered. By the time adoption is on the table there’s clear evidence the parent can’t care for their child without causing them further harm.

Children aren’t relinquished into the care system, it’s incredibly hard to do that. I believe in some cases continued contact can be very beneficial for the child, but in many cases of adoption it can be actively harmful.

Children are wired for attachment, they live their birth parents despite horrific neglect and abuse, and often want to stay. The assessment of beneficial contact is a complex one, you’re basically looking down the road and trying to predict what will be a lesser harm - contact or limited contact or no contact.

What makes sense exactly? That im a shitty person, it was sarcasm.

It’s a shame to see a voice of reason depart.