'I gave back my adopted baby'

[LetThereBeRock]

I've just read this article from the Guardian about a mother who gave back her adopted son because she didn't/couldn't bond with him.

I'm planning on adopting in the near future and I'm curious to know what others think of her story.

Apologies if this has been discussed already.

johnhemming - yes it's a good study isn't it. Though I do feel it's the beginning not the end iyswim vis a vis research.

litchick I think we are as one on this particular aspect. Interestingly I have the figures for children taken into care by month.

In 2006 6,000 children under 10 were taken into care, 2,180 under 1 and 1,810 under 6 months.

This has the care system responsible for a lot of RAD - where the solid research evidence is that it cannot be their parents bad parenting.

johnhemming - sorry to but in but thank you so much for the link you provided on page one. We are foster carers and it is the best site I have found - thank oyu so much

Those people working as foster carers and who adopt children from care have a really difficult job.

The job is made more difficult by the way the system works.

I think the woman featured in the Guardian and the adoption breakdown was rather unfortunate in that the woman did not come across well as others have said and she did have a lot of birth children too. I don't think she was in any way representative of the parents out there who adopt and after years of struggle and heartache have to admit defeat.

I feel really concerned at some of the judgemental comments on here from people who have never experienced adopting a child and therefore have no idea of the heartache, distress and anxiety that trying to parent a child who has been damaged by the abuse/neglect he suffered at the hands of his birth parents is all about. Yes of course it is terrible for a child who is at the centre of an adoption breakdown but there are no guarantees in the adoption process. I have seen families torn apart, marriages break down, mothers suffering severe depression/anxiety, birth children being traumatised by the upset that is caused when an adoption is unsuccessful. Only those who have lived this misery can know what it is like. And believe me for many parents the guilt that remains after a adoption breakdown is very long standing, and probably remains for life.

Litchick - you say adoption is a "dirty" secret in SSDs - this isn't fair. All social workers involved in adoption know only too well of the potential for breakdown and make sure that prospective adoptors are made aware of this and more importantly the reasons behind the difficulties. One of the problems is that many prospective adoptors don't really take this on board and adopt a sort of "it won't happen to us" sort of line. Whilst this is understandable on one level as they want to remain positive, it also means that realities aren't often faced.

The thing is that children who are abused/neglected by their birth parents, removed by Social Services and are the subject of court proceedings (where the decisions are made about their future)will suffer from that abuse/neglect, in some way shape or form, often throughout the remainder of their lives. This of course depends on the nature of the abuse and the length of time in endured BUT no matter how short the time this endured, the baby/child will be emotionally harmed - that is a fact. Whether the abuse was physical/sexual or the baby neglected etc then emotional abuse is always inthe mix. A baby can't be physically or sexually abused and NOT be emotionally abused at the same time.

For many years there was a belief that if these children were removed from abusing parents and placed in loving homes all would be well, but this has not always proved to be the case. The theory of attachment disorder has taught us just how much those early life experiences of abus/neglect will impact on a child. In short the baby learns that adults are not to be trusted and he is unable to trust caring adults who want to love and care for him, no matter how hard thry try. This is rather a simplistic view, but there is a wealth of inforamtion on attachment disorder and the lifelong problems it can bring if anyone is interested. I am not saying it is never possible for these attachment problems to be overcome and many adoptors who have become more aware of attachment issues and how it is best treated have had some remarkable success with adopted children.

John Hemming - I am loathe to get into any further debate with you as I know from past experience that it is pointless. I see however that you are still talking nonsense about attachment issues. You have clearly misinterpreted Michael Rutter's work if you still think that attachment disorder is not related to the caregiver's inability to meet a baby's needs from it's earliest moments. How on earth can it be that a baby is abused/neglected for the first 6 months of his life, but that has no effect on his emotional well being at all and it isn't until he is 6 - 18 months that there is any affect. Complete and utter nonsense. It could be argued that 6 days of abuse/neglect will cause enormous emotional damage in a baby. You are still peddling this nonsensical idea that it is the care system responsible for what you call RAD (reactive attachment disorder). Why don't you read some of the many many books on attachment disorder so that you can understand it? It's really not that difficult to understand the theory at it's basic level.

Just for info - JH has a particular axe to grind about SSD and what he perceives to be "miscarriages of justice" in that children are snatched by social workers and adopted as he says "willy nilly" - this is not the case but it's no good telling him that because he is completely impervious.

I've been pondering this all day and the thing that really sticks out was the phrase "...expected health problems and developmental delays...."

I wonder if she simply underestimated the severity of these, or did not properly understand them in advance. "Developmental delay" sounds like it might be a temporary thing, that could be fixed by a loving home. IME it usually seems to mean cerebral palsy.

nana - by putting quote marks around willy nilly, are you claiming that is a direct quote from JH?

Completely unnecessary dig there. Doesn't actually do you any favours at all.

To be fair to NanaNina - though she does come across as a bit ranty, I admit - she and JH have crossed swords on many a child protection thread and the way she sums up his views vis a vis adoption is fairly accurate, if unpolished.

I see that on this thread he has really cherry picked the Rutter findings to suit his case, when actually the evidence probably points to earlier and more frequest intervention by social services being necessary. Certainly the point that Romanian orphans had actual physical brain damage as a result of early neglect and the fact that that brain damage was in some cases irreversible, points to the liklihood that neglected children in this country will have similar brain damage.
Though care and therapy did help those children with brain damage, the biggest indicator of positive outcome was early withdrawal from the environment.

But I just could't be arsed to argue the point with JH. Because he won't listen anyway. Which is fine.

One thing that strikes me about Mumsnet is that if you criticise another parent's decision, there will be invariably be at least one post telling you that you would think differently if you had any experience- even if your previous posts had made it perfectly clear that experience was precisely what you had.

Happens again and again.

If you criticise a parent who gave up a disabled child you will be told that you wouldn't say that if you had any experience of caring for a disabled child (has happened to Riven and countless other mums from SN board).

If you criticise a parent for a harsh attitude towards a teenager, you will be told that you would think differently if you had any teens of your own (has happened to me and other mothers of teens)

If you criticise an adoptive parent, you will be told you would be seeing things differently if you had any experience of adoption (some of us do).

I do have experience of belonging to an adoptive family and I am convinced I would have been scarred for life if my parents had given away my little brother after 2 years- regardless of how I got on with him. Because how safe would that have made me? (not to mention that I would have been devastated to lose him- but that's a separate issue). Lots of biological siblings don't take to each other; that doesn't mean it is good for them to see that you can lose your parents if you don't show them enough affection.

About the Roumanian children- they were a particularly bad case in that they seem to have been totally neglected in a way that is not necessarily replicated in orphanages in other countries. Do we know that similar brain damage is caused by a less neglectful regime?

From what I gather the Roumanian orphans had had virtually no affection shown them, not had any interaction with adults, and basically been left unstimulated.

The Korean and Chinese adopted children I have seen have not appeared anywhere near as damaged, though they have had their problems.

So could there actually be two separate issues here: the trauma of separation itself (which would affect most children) and damaged caused by neglect/abuse (which would depend on the actual institution/family/foster family)? And then the third possibility of SN?

It is blatantly obvious that JH has an agenda and is using mn as a platform to air his anti SS views. Strange how quickly he ends up on these threads and yet doesn't post anywhere else on mn. (and no, that's not an invitation to post anywhere else on mn.)

The Rutter findings don't support the theory that this child had attachment issues resulting from his adoption in any case. He was adopted at four months, and according to Rutter, damage doesn't occur until six months.

If this child had attachment issues, they were caused by the adoptive mother and the lack of attention he received as a result of being adopted at four months old while she was pregnant, and of her being pregnant and having babies throughout the entire 18 month(count them, 18 MONTHS) that he lived with her.

Rutter's findings just don't come into it.

Not everyone who thinks you should put as much into an adopted child as into a biological has a romanticised view of adoption.

Of course it is ghastly when you have difficulty bonding. But who suggests that women should give up their biological children if they have bonding issues? And as we know from MN, women do have bonding issues with biological children. Are they ever advised to give them up?

For me, what made my childhood safe was the knowledge that my parents would never give up on any of us and that there was no difference between us in that respect. If a completely breakdown had happened we would all have had to be fostered no doubt; they wouldn't have made a difference.

bobbysmum - the guardian article says he was estimated to be a year old when adopted, maybe he'd been in care for four months after being abandoned on a roadside

She changed a lot of the facts in the article to suit her own needs.

The child wasn't called Dan, and he was adopted from Ethiopia and not South America. I can't say for sure that he wasn't found on a roadside at twelve months, but it was my understanding from what I've read elsewhere that she adopted him when he was four months old.

Edam - JH did actually say we shouldn't be "putting children through the adoption mill willy-nilly" so it was in fact a direct quote. FWIW I don't think you do yourself any favours by calling the adoptive mother who is the subject of debate here "a cow" and a "nasty woman" - unnecessary digs maybe?

Litchick - thank you for your comments and it made me smile that you describe me as coming across as a "bit ranty" and I think that very fair comment. It's just that I get a bit carried away and it's easy to tap away at the keyboard without putting too much thought into how I am coming across. Having said that JH does really make me angry because he posts such nonsense about social services, adoption and attachment disorder etc. His posts are usually wholly inaccurate and he can never evidence anything and amount to a series of random comments that don't make any sense. As I've said before I think for an MP to post such inaccurate nonsense is highly irresponsible, BUT as you say there is no point in trying to debate with him becuase he doesn't talk sense.

Re the Romanian children and brain damage. Have you read "Why Love Matters" by Sue Gerhardt. It is really interesting because she explains how it has been proven that children who are subjected to early abuse/neglect do actually have irregular brain patterns which could be indicative of all sorts of future problems, in addition to the problems brought about by insecure attachments.

Wannabe - totally agree. I have asked JH again and again why he is driven by this issue of SSD injustices and adoption but as with everything with him there is never a rational response.

Cory - agree with you about the business of people posting about "not having had the particular experience" etc but in some ways I suppose it is true to a large extent isn't it.

Back to the original topic - I think it's a pity that the Guardian chose this particular mother to draw attention to adoption breakdowns because I don't think she came across well and it is easy to see why people are feeling negatively about her. I think they should have chosen a UK case and one where there was more humility expressed (for want of a better word) but I can't imagine parents who have had adoption breakdowns will be queueing up to have their story told in the paper.

NanaNina Wed 25-Nov-09 14:25:57

"Cory - agree with you about the business of people posting about "not having had the particular experience" etc but in some ways I suppose it is true to a large extent isn't it."

I know, I'm slightly jaundiced here by the fact that this is the third topic in a relatively short space where I have posted to explain that I do have experience only to be told you wouldn't be saying this if you had experience

makes you think people can't cope with the idea that experiences may involve the same factor and yet differ or that people may draw different conclusions from their experiences

and your last point is very well made: the kind of person who would tell this tale well is precisely the kind of person who would never tell it

even the ones who have put a lot of work in and been successful would often be unhappy about exposing their children to the national press, so you are bound to get a certain type of personality in this kind of article

which makes me wonder how much good these stories actually do

I am interested in the brain damage aspect, because it seems very clear to me that this was not something my brother had been exposed to in his Asian orphanage.

As far as we could judge (without understanding a word) he had a very good level of language at age 2 mand good practical skills. He clearly knew how to relate to people. He understood the idea of a joke (my Mum had been prepared for a child that could not smile and was over the moon when he took one look at her long Western nose and burst into peels of laughter). He has grown up able to maintain very good and normal attachments to people (very fond of his family, sometimes a little reserved with strangers, happily married).

So clearly someone did something right in his early days.

Wannabe and nananina I post in various places. I think it is a good idea for MPs to directly engage with people.

It was Fran Lyon (who now lives in Sweden with her daughter that was proposed to be removed at birth) that introduced me to Sue Gerhardt's book. Michael Rutter's work adds to this.

I have now found the research referred to in The Guardian, but not yet got the original documentation.

nananina asks "I have asked JH again and again why he is driven by this issue of SSD injustices", because I think it is important for MPs to act to fight injustice. I have living in my flat a Senator from Jersey who is in exile because of his campaigning against injustice.

I don't deny that I have personally seen how bad the system can get. Perhaps that is why I believe the people who complain about it. The issues I personally encountered were resolved completely more than 3 years ago.

I continue to work in this area because it is going so badly wrong. That does not mean that all the people working in it are evil or anything like that. It does mean, however, that the system as a whole does a lot of damage including to practitioners.

The Romanian orphanages were unbelievably extreme, I don't think it is reasonable to assume that other orphanages would have similar outcomes

I've spent time in a few different 'third world' countries, and I'll never forget an aid worker pointing out that you don't see anyone with disabilities in some parts of Africa

a child available for adoption because of abandonment, might be more likely to have some pre-existing special needs, which meant his family did not feel able to cope with caring for him

It is because the orphanages were extreme that the Rutter work has particular value.

It is the sort of experiment that should never get ethical permission.

Much that David Southall managed to get ethical permission to make babies breathe Carbon Monoxide.

JH -you might have been "introduced" to Sue Gerhardt's book but you sure as hell haven't read it or understood it because if you had you wouldn't post such nonsense about attachment disorder!

I read this on Saturday and found it very sad....But I couldn't judge that woman. Each case is very different and I suppose in her case, she already had children. There was no huge longing for a child, or so it seemed.

IMO it could be different if you had longed for a child and finally got one.

Nananina what nonsense?