AIBU to think adopted children need a mother figure?

[Bertiebiscuit]

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

You have a different experience from me but that doesn't make me wrong.

As it happens I adopted before Sure Start, before virtual heads, before legal entitlement to adoption leave even. No adoption support fund or PPP. Educational help was in the form of Statements, not ehc plans. Adopters like me fought for services to be introduced.

We funded just about every intervention ourselves. I paid to go on courses so I could learn about early trauma.

There has never been a golden age of adoption support. If there was I missed it.

The children being adopted when I adopted were just as affected by early trauma, attachment issues, foetal alcohol, drugs as your cohort.

I know children who have gone into perfectly pleasant foster homes and even children's homes. It's not all the hell hole you describe.

So when she turns up drunk, tells the kids she has something special for them and hands them a can of Carlsberg, or tells them they’re traitors for living with a new family, or that those fucking social workers stole you, or criticises everything about them, or sits stoned in the corner of the contact space, or tells them they can come back and live with her, or cries all over them, or that they have a new “daddy” who can’t wait to meet them next time, or turns up late and fights with the social worker because they have less time, or hands them a pile of “gifts” they’ve stolen on the way there…

You have such an idealised view of children who are removed from their parents care and the capacity of those parents to manage contact for their child’s benefit it’s not funny.

Children won’t “see her for who she is” they’ll feel the chaos of an adult out of control, feel the same fear in the pit of their stomach hat they had as infants, feel the same uncertainty of an adult who can’t care for them but that they love, feel the same protectiveness, and shame and responsibility. And they’ll distrust the people who put them back in that situation again after telling them they were safe, the people helping them heal from the harm already done.

You are right. I hadn't read the stuff about the sexual abuse in depth. They are scum.
But I stick with my point about needing more support in the early days of placement and if I called for anything it would be even greater scrutiny from social workers of middle class educated people who can talk the talk.
Not to ban all gay men from adopting.

@KeepPumping is completely delusional and doesn’t have a clue what kids who are taken into care have gone through. People are just so desperate that the biological parent should have the “right” to be a parent despite being completely inadequate and harmful. And people like this claim to be thinking about the children. They’re not.

What I said was that the child has a right to know who it"s biological parents are, for obvious reasons with some adoptions you can only pretend to have two mums or two dads for so long?

No what you said was if mum turns up drunk that’s ok cos the child will see her for who she is. Thats what people are taking issue with.

In modern adoption the fact the child is adopted is introduced to them as early as possible, and for many children they know because of the age they were when they were adopted.

But knowing who their biological parents are isn’t at issue. Most adoptive parents give far far more thought about how they can best help their kids make sense of their life stories that you seem to imagine.

If you think adopters are out there pretending their kids life stories never happened and not guiding them through a landmine field then you have a very outdated and ill informed view of adoption

That's some biological parents. It's not all. That's perhaps your experience, let's not pretend thats the norm here. It's not. You seem to be tarring biological parents with the same brush and the same outdated fear mongering thats being ongoing forever. Biological parents aren't all like that. For the record, I'm not a biological parent who has lost a child.

Parents that lose their children to the care system and then adoption aren't all drunks/addicts or violent. Try not to perpetuate stereotypes and have a word with yourself for doing so please.

Single parents.. how many of them are there.

Lot of homophobia here. Disgusting.

Maybe watch tip toe lads and cop on to yourselves.

Yabu is winning on Mumsnet seriously?men are toxic.

I’ve decades experience as a CP social worker, each of the examples I gave happened during family time with a birth parent. No not all biological parents but violence followed by substance misuse remains the most common reasons for involvement with the child protection process, and for children being removed, between them representing over 80% of CP registrations.

I fully support children having knowledge of their birth families, and for adopted children having at very least indirect contact. I facilitate indirect contact for my own kids. I also know, from long experience, that by the time a child is permanently removed, the birth parents have had multiple opportunities over many years to show they can safely parent, or the concerns for the child’s safety are so significant and immediate it is clear there’s no going back.

Some birth parents can manage direct contact in a way that prioritises the child, and absolutely that should be supported where at all possible. I’d argue though that the majority they simply can’t because the reasons the child was removed are continuing factors in their lives, be that violence, substance misuse, etc and their lives continue to be too chaotic.

It’s funny - you routinely see posts on here from people wanting to cut contact with grandparents who have fed their child too much sugar, or who won’t follow their rules for their child. Or stopping contact with their dad because he keeps them up late, feeds them McDonalds or brought them home late.

But children who have already been significantly and often seriously harmed by their birth parents - to the point where professionals have evidence the parent cannot safely care for their child - should be compelled to have regular direct contact with that parent, because it’s their parent.

That would leave many more children without the benefits of adoption. Surely the only people who can truly comment on this are the adopted children.

Interesting you didn’t mention his wife?

My girls' birth mother and birth father both had learning disabilities. This caused them to make bad choices. The problem is, these choices directly impacted the children

When we were adopting, the emphasis was very much on the story that the birth parents were good people who simply didn't know how to parent.

This narrative came absolutely crashing down when I got hold of the files and when birth dad was convicted of extremely serious sexual offences.

The point is, the children are affected by what they went through, not by whatever label we use to explain it. My girls feel that the learning disability side of things is used as an excuse. Both girls have learning disabilities but they probably wouldn't do any of what their birth parents did.

If we were adopting them now, I believe direct contact would have been ordered. But they would have continued to fail the children - there were older siblings who were still in contact via long term foster care and that all went horribly wrong.

In my heart, I feel that all children need a mum, doesn't need to be biological.

However, I am not against two men adopting a child but if they do, I think it would be very important that there was a woman involved i.e. one of their mums/sister etc so that the child has a balance of both sexes inputting into their care. Likewise if two women adopt I think it's really important that there's a male figure on the scene.

Load of shite.

Sensible points, I have direct experience of family members being in the care system due to the death of a parent and the other biological parent not wanting to have them living with them (new family) apart from that emotional hurt they were not at risk of being hit, shouted at or watching someone shooting up, there are some very generalised worst case scenarios being posted here.

Good points.

Excellent point, some views from people who were adopted would be interesting.

Please post a link to the study/research on your 80% claim.

This post is about adoption, not about grandparents being cut out of lives. Nor would any father lose custody legally for the scenarios you've described. Also, a key difference in these situations is that the child still has a relationship with close family members. It's hardly eggs for eggs now is it? It's a moot point.

I do believe there are a lot of adopted parents on this thread, like on the adoption board, who truly believe that they are the absolute 'experts' on adoption and close down any other voice's that don't agree with their point. Stating other poster's haven't a clue. We do. Adoption isn't an easy ride for anyone.

On the adoption board there are several adopted parents wringing their hands over the idea that an adopted parent could be so abusive, some not believing or excusing their fellow adopted parents. It's a revolting read. Adopted parents are just as capable of abusing the children they adopted as a bio parent. Recent convictions include Kandyce Downer, her victim Keegan Downer was 18 months old. Laura Castle murdered Leiland-James Corkhill aged 13 months. Matthew Scully hicks murdered his daughter Elsie.

Not all biological parents are as you've described. As a CP social worker you should be well aware that biological parent/s lose custody of their children for various reasons. These reasons can include mental health issues, the death of a parent, violence from a partner, youth or simply because the mother is a care leaver. These children deserve a relationship with biological family members. As stated before your experience is not the norm, it's your norm.

Let's hope that this tragic case results in further legislation for the cared for child. They are the one's who are ultimately affected.

So all fathers are abusers? You can get help for your anxiety. Children are safer with people who don't abuse them. You cannot say definitively that they are safer with either sex. You could use statistics to suggest that women abuse children to a lesser degree. But to say they are safer with women isn't accurate at all.

If your child was lost would you rather they sought help from a man or a woman? I know they would statistically be far far safer approaching a woman and to suggest otherwise is completely disingenuous and if you actually believe they would be statistically as safe with either sex then you need to do some quick research. It won't take you long to find the statistics.

I am really cross that the Preston Davey case has put a question mark over same sex (male) couples. For years, adoption agencies have been encouraged to approach same sex couples.

So many same sex couples have adopted children and given them an incredible life that they wouldn't have had otherwise.

When other child deaths hit the headlines, the thought is often "they shouldn't have been allowed to have children" which is fair and reasonable. The thought is never "heterosexuals shouldn't be allowed to have children". Now, because of one awful case, why should the thought be "gay couples shouldn't be allowed to have children"?

Sadly, there are many awful people in this world, but their awful acts shouldn't define an entire community.