finding mum and dad.....

[crikeybill]

On channel 4. Holy Christ I'm sobbing. I've tried turning it over but I have to know if someone adopts them....

Italian... My thoughts exactly.

My last post was to confirm I understood why the previous poster had come to the conclusion adopters selected based on looks... Not agreeing with them

I've had a child rejected because they had red hair. I've had a child rejected because they wore glasses. I've had a child rejected because they "looked" too old. There are many more children waiting parents than there are parents waiting to adopt and this means some people can be more "picky" it seems.

It's quite common practice in my La for photos to be withheld now.

Can adopters say they would ideally like a resemblance?

MrsBW Personally I think my DDs look nothing like my DH or myself,
but we still get people saying they are like us. However, it seems more that they have picked up our mannerisms, way of talking etc, not looks per se.

I think few people would notice/ comment in a negative way because of the recessive nature of genes you could look like someone else in your family. Especially if parents are very different to each other.
I think it would only be an impossibility like brown eyed child to blue eyed parents that some could notice.
Most people could have a red head child (in theory) from their own hair colours (but maybe not from the grandparents so not obvious)
When I think about it I don't think many people are miniatures of their parents, some resemble siblings or cousins or aunts or uncles.
Their behaviour , possibly environmental can be more similar

Tween Sure... it wouldn't be the be all and end all in any way shape and form. And if everything else were right, it would, of course pale into insignificance. But it's something I think would consider not for selfish reasons, but because I think it might be easier for the children (I haven't been approved yet, let alone matched so reserve the right to totally change my mind).

scarlet Not for one second saying you're lying of course, but I'm just incredulous and can't believe it. I can't help but wonder if there were other reasons for parents not choosing those children that they, for some reason, didn't want to disclose (as though rejecting a child because they had red hair was a 'respectable' reason)

naty1 my adoption agency would actively look for some resemblance although not in 'fine detail' - i.e. if adoptive parents were short, they may think carefully about placing children who were tall for their age. Doesn't mean they wouldn't place them, but physical resemblances would be seen as a positive.

naty1 people don't have to comment in a negative way - any (well meaning) comment could highlight to a child that they weren't biologically related and highlight issues of identity.

I think it is impossible for any of us to state how often looks affect adopters' decisions. How can we know?

On the one hand, I think we have to accept that this is a looks-obsessed society, and people make judgements based on looks all the time - at work, in the voting booth, on the street. As potential adopters you are given such restricted information about the children - especially if you adopting an infant - that you are desperately scanning for clues and that includes visual clues, intensely staring at the photo trying to work out if this is the child for you. Visually appealing children are bound to be at an advantage here. They just are. There is so little else to go on in deciding if this is 'your' child.

On the other hand, we don't know if this means that people tend to go for the conventionally prettiest. Others here have said how certain children just 'clicked' for them. I know that when I meet children in the flesh there are some I just connect with, and they're not necessarily the 'cute' ones - that is one advantage of adoption parties, I suppose.

i don't know if adopters can say they would like a resemblance. I am a lesbian adopter who was approved to adopt a child of a different ethnic origin, so it was never an option here. I was secretly rather thrilled to adopt a child who looked so very unlike me - much cuter than anything i could produce, I am still in awe of her perfect little nose... But yes, we can't pass as a 'normal' family as we are two mums with two children of different skin colours, so are kids are forced to deal with questions about it all the time, which they could do without.

Always more eloquent than me, Devora

naty - like Devora I adopted a child of a different race so resemblence is really not an issue in our family though bizarrely people still tell me they see a resemblence.

By the time I was matched I would have taken a fish if they'd offered me one I was so desperate so I'm incredulous that anyone would refuse a child solely on the basis that they have red hair or wore glasses.

I also suspect that my social worker would have been asking some searching questions of me if I did so.

On the other hand when I was offered a photo of a boy before DS, I said to the agency "I'd prefer a child less asian"! Which if you'd met my DS who is an identical ethnicity it would be obvious that it wasn't the real reason. I'm just not sure I could articulate exactly what the real reason was.

I would personally discount a lot of what is said in the panic of the moment when you are confronted by details of a real child.

How exactly do you know what the reasons for not accepting the prospective match of a child? I thought in this country you get photo and detilas before you get as far as meeting child/foster carers - presumably you know at that point what their hair colour is and whether they wear glasses and wouldn;t get as far as meeting their foster carer if you had such an objection to it.

Perhaps I have misunderstood how it works in this country.

This is an interesting thread. Italiangreyhound you ask if there is any difference between counties and I think there may be a difference between inner cities and the shire counties, although I think all Children's Services are struggling with massively reduced budgets.

You also asked about tips for getting along with foster carers. To be honest I think you might be in danger of "overthinking" this a bit (though with good intentions of course) so much depends on the foster carers, the child, and whether the chemistry is right between the foster carers and the adopters. Obviously we always did our utmost to stress to foster carers how important it was to be welcoming to adopters and allow them to carry out task, bathing a baby or child, feeding him, playing with him etc. However I have seen the best and worst of these "handovers" - I remember the foster carer who sat nursing the baby and kissing her on her head every so often (in the way that you do with your own baby) while the nervous childless couple sat on the sofa. I stepped in of course and asked the foster carer to pass the baby to the adoptive mother, which she reluctantly did, but then stood over her, so I put my arms gently on the foster carer's shoulders and gently said "it would be great if you could make us a cup of tea" and she had little option but to go into the kitchen. The whole visit was difficult and I felt annoyed with the foster carer.

I assured the couple that nothing was their fault but the foster carer was just attached to the baby (she's only had her for a few weeks at 8 months of age) Needless to say I had a discussion with the carer and she said she was only been over protective because the baby had her injection a couple of days before, which I didn't think was a good reason. However we did manager to help the carer to "build a bridge" between herself and the adopters and the baby moved within a couple of weeks as there is no evidence to suggest that long introductions have better outcomes.

I have also see brilliant foster carers who are warm and welcoming and help the adopters to interact with the child (especially if they are childless) and it has all been a very positive experience. You can only be you IGH (as Oscar Wilde said "everyone else is taken.")

Scarlet I find it absolutely horrendous that you have had to take a CUT in funding. This of course is all the fault of this govt who are slashing the budgets of all public services by demanding millions of pounds of savings. LAs have no option but to cut services and I think a lot of people don't realise this is the fault of the govt and not the LA. I really do wonder how public services are going to continue to exist for much longer, and I suspect this is the intention of the govt, so that they can push ahead with their privatisation agenda. Sorry to go on a political rant but I think it is relevant.

You also wondered why LAs weren't more flexible and allow the short term carers to take the children on a permanent basis, and I think if the carers had made such an offer the LA would "snatch their hands off" so to speak. There has been talk of short term foster carers not being able to adopt or permanently foster the children on placement, but there is no rule than this cannot happen. Each case is different of course and the individual circumstances must be taken into consideration. The most successful placements are those where the child/ren are already settled with the family, for obvious reasons.

MrsBW you are quite right to point out that the background details of the boys shown on the programme could not be divulged, and there would be far more to it than just seeing these little boys who appeared happy.

I'm not sure about the debate about children being seen at an Adoption Party, or seeing photographs etc. I think the important thing is the background of these children, and what the likely problems might be, and whether the adopters feel that they could cope, though of course there is no way of knowing until the child has been placed for several months. Several adopters have told me that they were really scared they had done the wrong thing and couldn't bond with the child but were afraid of telling social workers, and of course we only got to hear when the adopters were through this transitional period and felt that they had done the right thing, knew it was going to be a tough journey, but they were ready for that journey. It's a great shame that adopters felt they weren't able to tell social workers, although I agree that inexperienced social workers might panic and think they had better remove the child. Experienced adoption social workers of course would be able to re-assure adopters that this was quite natural and there would be a period of adjustment and this should be expected.

This thread continues to be so interesting. To pick up on something someone else said, I realise potential adopters are asked very detailed questions about what kinds of special needs they feel able to cope with, as well as questions about age and gender. But, even if you been approved, if you said you didn't want a red haired child or one who wore glasses, wouldn't social workers wonder whether you weren't a bit superficial?

It's very sad that some adopters have chosen not to chose a child based on the fact they have red hair or wear glasses. Very sad. I don't think most adopters would think that way, but I have no idea.

naty1 it is a common mistake but it is not impossible for a brown eyed child to be born to blue eyed parents.

genetics.thetech.org/how-blue-eyed-parents-can-have-brown-eyed-children

Kew in this country it works both ways. Some counties, like ours, do not necesserily show a photo before you agree, or you may see such a tiny photo as to be not really very much of a resemblemce (so I am told) or you may see a proper-sized photo.

If you go to a profiling event (based on experience so far) you do see photos.

A fish Kew!!!!

Nananina Over-thinking! Over-thinking is really just my middle name Italian Over-thing Greyhound!

Beryl do you think adopters are badly portrayed in media? I kind of agree to a point, or rather adoption seems to be badly portrayed in drama, kind of always about issues etc.

I think it would be good to have more realistic programmes that portrayed foster cares and adopters etc.

I also think any adopter who turned down a child for having red hair or glasses would be having a Very Serious Talk with their SW (and rightly so). I'm not saying I don't believe this has happened - adopters are the same range of weird and wonderful as anyone else - but I wouldn't want people reading this thread to think that the system condones a big beauty parade.

IGH, that's an interesting question. (I know you asked it of Beryl, not me!) I agree with you: I think adoption gets a bad press, but not adopters (yet?)

That was what I thought Devors - where was the social worker when theses childrne were being turned down for cosmetic reasons? I can just imagine my social worker - saying "Oh OK then, no more childrne with glasses, fine and dandy"

Obviously very differnt approach in some parts of the country.

I think if anything that documentary helped to show the idea of adopters as good or bad! And not in a good way! Good if they 'chose' the child/ren we were all routing for on TV, and bad if they did not!

This is based on what I have read in social media like facebook and mumsnet, and not just on this thread.

But the really good thing about that programme, that started this whole discussion, is that it is happening (the discussion). And not just on the adoption threads (as it is) but also here in telly addicts. If that makes sense!

So the programme was really all about the kids. As it should be. But in order for adoption to work, there needs to be those adopters. Sadly, there are not enough and that is why some children are waiting longer than they should (in an ideal world), in my humble opinion.

I find it quite hard all this talk of rejecting children. As a potential adopter I have not yet been 'matched'. I have not chosen a child or rejected a child but I have chosen to express an interest in a child or two or so and chosen not to pursue that interest. Never based on hair colour or 'eye-furniture', I hasten to add!

Adopting a child is like getting married, for life! Oh that's right marriage isn't always for life, and sadly adoption don't always work out. But ideally one enters into either with a real sense of commitment and a real feeling of hope (am I starry eyed and idealistic!).

Of course we also need fabulous foster cares, long and short term, and social workers etc and I bet there are lots of other people in the system. But as far as I can see none of these make a lifelong commitment to the child/ren, although I am pretty sure and hopeful that long-term foster carers do make that lifelong commitment (but I don't know). I don't know any long-term foster carers, and I would love to know them. As this is part of the whole picture, which I think the public needs to know about because if the public knows that there are these needs maybe they will be able to come forward for all these key vital roles (foster cares, long and short term, social workers and adopters).

Seeing the real face of looking for adoption in those adorable little boys is something that really helps to make it more real for those of us who are not yet adopters.

I think this business of a child with red hair and/or glasses is a red herring (no pun intended) and of course there would be concern if anyone said they could not take such a child. The idea of matching is just that really, to look at what age range the adopters "offer" is (and sometimes trying to move them up to under 2 to under 5 for example) and the age of their birth children if they have any. An adopted child needs to be the youngest so that he/she is not in competition with a younger child. There also needs ideally to be a 2 year gap between an adopted child and birth child.

As part of the matching process adopters are asked to study a long list of possible problems e.g. child who has a parent with a psychotic illness (as child has a 50% risk of inheriting this mental illness) child who has a parent(s) with learning difficulties (again the risk of inheritance) child who has sexualised behaviour, foetal alcohol syndrome, child who is HIV positive, child with complex medical needs, child with disabilities, those sorts of issues. Adopters need to be very honest in this matching process, but of course in itself it is somewhat superficial because the adopters obviously need to know the full background details of any child they might be considering.

IGH I would urge you to look beyond seeing the faces of those "adorable little boys" and I don't mean to sound unkind or insulting of these children, but they (and many hundreds like them) have suffered trauma in their early lives and this isn't going to go away because they are with foster carers or adopters for that matter who are giving them lots of love and attention. Obviously the background details of the boys could not be divulged but from what the foster carer said they had been seriously neglected. Sometimes the effects of the trauma lie dormant in the child till they hit adolescence and then problems emerge which can be very difficult to handle. I have seen marriages broken up, one of the adoptive parents suffering mental health problems when the problems in adopted children become insurmountable, and all sorts of tensions in families struggling to cope with children who did not have the unconditional love in their earliest hours, days, weeks etc which all children need to be able to thrive into warm well adjusted adults. There is even evidence now that the foetus in utero can be adversely affected by tension in the mother and domestic violence etc.

I'm sorry - I'm not trying to put anyone off, but I do think IGH you may have a pair of "rose tinted" spectacles that you need to put in the bin! I think it's fine to have hope, but you also need to be realistic and I always encouraged adopters to "fast forward the tape" and look beyond the little 3 year old with an impish grin, to all the ages and stages of his development. No one has a crystal ball of course but I do think it's vital that adopters do fast forward that tape. You say you find it hard to think of people rejecting children but there have been adopters on the thread explaining that for them one child or another did not seem the right fit for them for whatever reason and this is absolutely the right track to be on.......as you say adoption is for life and with all the matching in the world and the right chemistry etc there are absolutely no guarantees.

NinaNana can you let me have a link/source showing the 50% risk of children inheriting a psychotic illness please?

Hi IGH, I'd like to reassure you that long AND short term foster carers make lifelong commitments to their foster children - if parents (adoptive or birth or otherwise) allow it. I don't know any foster carer who simply boots the child out once they reach 18 (but then I'm only friends with the good ones!) and I'm still a second mummy to some of the children who "only" lived with me for 18 months.

Just to clarify the red hair/glasses comment, I'm sure anyone with any involvement with social services knows that some social workers are better than others! That little boys SW joked that she could dye his hair for them... (!). From what I was later told I think several prospective adopters had said he would just stand out too much, and others thought he might have a temper.

Actually, the more I think about it the more I don't condemn an adopter for wanting a child who physically resembles them, just as I don't condemn those who only want babies. If I'd been looking to create a family for myself instead of foster then I'm sure I'd be exactly the same. I just get cross when it's my foster children that get passed over!!

That is absolute nonsense NanaNina. There is no study which shows a 50% risk of a child inheriting a psychotic illness. It does appear that people who have a parent who has such an illness have an increased risk of themselves developing it but the mechanisms are not clear and the increased risk is small. Like many illnesses there seems to be a stress/vulnerability process in place i.e. someone may have a genetic predisposition which can trigger into illness with certain stressors. Stating a 50% causal link is hideously inaccurate.