No legal aid = baby adopted

[CFSKate]

I saw this on Channel 4 News yesterday, I only saw it part way through, but it went something like this, there was a couple who were accused of abusing their child, they couldn't get legal aid, the court had the child adopted, and then it went to court again and new evidence said there was a medical condition and the parents weren't guilty of abuse, but the adoption is final, they can't get their baby back.

Read this and weep.
www.conservativehome.com/localgovernment/2015/10/the-government-has-failed-on-adoption.html

I sometimes think that the people who have the most to lose with less secrecy are often the birth parents - though I agree at this point there isn;t much choice.

This is what some Tories think. And you though 26 weeks was bad
This is a heartless, national scandal. All the children want and need is a loving, caring home. The whole system is rotten to the core. People prepared to give the children a home should be vetted most urgently (say two weeks). Issues such as age, politics, smoking and colour should be totally excluded. The children should be in care for no more than one month. The very word "vocation" has been debased. Everyone involved should be truly ashamed

However, there are an awful lot of threads in Adoption and other adoption forums where adopters have shared that they most certainly do not have the additional parenting skills needed. Many have said they had adopted or wanted to adopt because they were desperate for children and had had many years of ttc. It seems to be common consensus that parenting an adopted child is not the same as parenting a bio child, and those who have done both have said the two are night and day but as a poster said the adopters go ahead because they are "foolish/desperate" (their words). In the threads in Adoption (mumsnet) and Adoption UK and there seem to be many, many, many adopters who are not coping. The training also seems to be shambolic, and a complete lack of post adoption support.

Also, in terms of what is best for the children from "problem" families, there was a thread recently in AIBU in which a number of adults who had been LAC shared the fact that they would have preferred to stay with their parents whatever the problems had been. The posters were extremely brave and honest.

I would strongly advocate a huge shift towards greater social support and education, rather than more adoptions, and a total reform of social work practice.

This is not to say that adoption is not important as well, but its limitations need to be appreciated as well, imho.

That is utterly terrifying - it takes longer than 2 weeks to get a DBS check! We had a 'quick' process it was still 18 months and tbh we felt utterly flummoxed when we started, because y'know this parenting malarkey isn't easy, especially when you go from nought to multiple!

Respect to our LA though, we were about as trained and prepared as they could make us. The FCs are outstanding and our ongoing training is great as is the support atm. So no complaints, it is just an enormous life change.

Who is Harry Phibbs - does he have any personal experience of adoption?

I get the impression that he thinks if you scoop up children from feckless parents and drop them on right minded adoptive parents (within a month) then all would be well in the world!

Governments in my very humble opinion shouldn't be pro- or anti- adoption, they should be pro-children and there isn't a one size fits all that can work.

Years ago I met a really interesting guy who told me he had transracially adopted a small boy he met while being a doctor in Africa, back in the 60s. He said, ruefully, "Back then I was treated as some kind of hero for adopting a black child from Africa; now people think I'm Imperialist scum."

Sometimes, when I read these threads, I wonder if it's going to go that way with domestic adoption too. Will we been seen as baby-snatchers, adopteraptors, blithely profiting from other people's misery?

Combined, are you suggesting that wanting to be a parent is a bad reason to adop because you seem to be implying that?

You have to want to be a parent or it doesn't make any sense to jump through the myriad hoops presented, to have every aspect of everything you have ever done or do analysed and unpacked not to mention bringing a child or children into your home who you know to have a slew of issues and committing to love them, advocate for them, support them, facilitate contact and you know, generally be the best parent you can be for them. In fact you have to REALLY want to be a parent or be some sort of crazy masochist because it is hard but that is not to seek praise or sympathy because we chose it, but goodness knows it had been a deliberate and deliberated choice,

Kew, I am going to quote you on Twitter. Exactly.

I agree with Kew

I always say that you have to really want to be a parent in order to adopt, really really want it because sometimes it's all that gets you through.

Would you prefer that the people who say "we have a spare room and would help a poor orphan" to be adopters?! You think they would make a better job?!

there seem to be many, many, many adopters who are not coping - of course there are. At some point or other all of us probably struggle to cope . By my assessment (ie not very scientific) about 60% of our childrne have additional needs of some sort. Of course we go through phases of not coping very well.

None the less cope we do. Though yes it would be nice to get any a little more support.

I don;t think parenting a birth or adopted child is "night and day" btw - I think adoptive parenting is (or should be) "best practice parenting". I don't do anything with DS (on a good day!) that isn't best practice parenting. The difference with him is that you can't lazy parent (or if you do you suffer for it pretty quickly). You have to be on the top of your game most of the time, you have to use the best practice approach to him. Many children will respond pretty well to just about any punishment/reward/natural conseqence/time out etc system provided they are fair and consistent. DS not so much.

Birth parents have children like this too, their children have ADHD, be on the autistic spectrum etc.

combined, read the rest of MN, lots of non-adoptive parents also sometimes can't cope and seek help. What's your point?

We should pretend it's not hard? That adopters should be superhuman? We should only adopt as a hobby and not because we want to be parents?

jenny and tldr. The evidence suggests it isn't only the removal from primary care givers that causes issues. Adults that only ever remember the adoptive parents, removed at baby stage are still effected. I think you're actually underestimating the future effects, 5, 10, 30 years down the line for that child. The fact is 3 yr olds facing short term upheaval have a better life outcome than adults who live in a permanent state of instability surrounding their birth parents. Maybe you aren't aware, but part of the pre adoption assessment is how attached they are to the birth parent/ foster carer. Because the more attached they are, the easier it is to form attachments to the potential adoptive parents. I'm suggesting it would work exactly the same in reverse. Issues? Yes of course. But on a much smaller scale than to an adult trying to live with the knowledge they could have been raised by their biological parents.

lurked, I'm not underestimating anything. I'm saying (and I've said repeatedly) that I (or in fact we here on this thread) don't know, because we don't.

Do you have a source for your fact that a 3yo facing 'short term upheaval' will have a better life outcome? That's a genuine question. If you have a source for this, I'd like to read it.

And I'd like to know if it takes into account how many previous moves the 3yo has had. Or if it has any other caveats.

the more attached they are, the easier it is to form attachments to the potential adoptive parents. I'm suggesting it would work exactly the same in reverse.

I think you may be seriously misunderstanding this. Yes, you are quite right that when a looked after child has bonded with a primary caregiver, this is considered a good sign for their ability to then form attachments to adoptive parents. But this is only in comparison to a child who has not been able to attach properly to any primary caregiver, NOT in comparison to children who have bonded with their parents in the normal way.

The really bad news is the baby or child who has never been able to trust and expect responsive, loving care, who has withdrawn into themselves because they profoundly distrust the world around them. Whereas a child who has attached will doubtless suffer trauma when that bond is disrupted, but having done it once they are more likely to do it again.

More likely, but no guarantees. And the more often children lose parents and the loving bond they have with them, the more likely they will stop trusting or expecting loving care, and will withdraw from attachments. So you do not multiply the protective factor of attachment by repeated disruptions: you multiply the trauma of it.

Do you see? There is no 'working in reverse', just more trauma to overcome, and reduced capacity for doing so. You can't dismiss this as 'much smaller' 'issues' - this is a massively big deal. I'm still not saying it is a bigger deal than being forced to live apart from your biological parents, but it might be. That is why none of us can know what the right thing to do here is. You are, simply, wrong to just dismiss this as insignificant.

combined02 I'm parenting a birth and an adopted child. It isn't night and day, in fact my birth child is much harder at times!

This case is hugely sad, I have no idea why the court case and fact finding could not be done in a more timely manner. It is just horrific.

I really do not think, from my experience, that most children taken into care and adopted are similar to this, they often live with a long term degree of neglect which is very damaging, it is not one off things at all. At least from what I have read of child's paper work going through the process. Having said that that does not detract from the fact this case is awful and very, very sad.

I agree with Italian that birth parenting and adoptive parenting isn't night and day. Much of it is the same - parenting. For me, about 80% is the same. But yes, adopted children often have particular needs and require what Kew calls 'best practice parenting' and I call 'high intensity parenting'. But it absolutely isn't a completely different experience from parenting a birth child. Just different enough that sometimes we have to warn prospective adopters that they need to learn about what it will really mean for them.

Devora

Plus what people write about on mumsnet, can't cope, it;s all bad etc is how it is at that moment, and I have read birth parents saying that too. But parenting children through adoption does need some skills and care and that is why training and support. I was desperate to be a mum again but not so desperate I would do anything! My son is totally my son, I love him to bits and he loves me, dh and his dsis. It is very like a regular family but I am aware some adopters do have a much, much harder time of it. And when people come onto the mumsnet adoption boards and ask about adoption the people feel they do need to tell the truth and explain how it might be. But it really truly is not all doom and gloom.

in the case in the paper I am just so very sad for those poor birth parents and do angry at the state for what they did in this case. Just because I have a son who was adopted doesn't mean i cannot see the terrible injustice of this case. I don;t have any answers for this case, but for the future, procedures should be put in place to ensure this never happens again. An example would be SIDS where mum were accused and sometimes even arrested and imprisoned for killing their babies when it was SIDS. Now the medical profession knows so much more about that tragedy I really hope they will understand this tragedy and will work to end this type of injustice.

tldr I'm comparing the accepted fact children adopted early on, have better outcomes than those coming from care. However good that care was. Because that instability of who they are and all the other questions pervades adult life because they don't have stability. And while in no way am I implying the adoptive parents won't try and offer stability, it's impossible for them to ever explain all those whys to the extent the older child, and adult will ever truly feel stable.

Devora not at all. You are seriously misunderstanding if you think it only applies to looked after children. It's used to assess children still resident with birth parents too. Children and parents with bonds just as normal and loving as anyone elses.

posted too soon. If the adoptive parents were being assessed because their ability to parent was in question, rather than moral/legal, that childs attachment to them would be used as an indication of how well they would form future attachments. So it's not wrong to suggest the same theory could apply just because the reasons to remove the child would be different.

Eh? Where did I say it only applies to looked after children? And what's that got to do with the point I was making?