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....

How can boys just be passed up because they are 6and not a baby

Erm, because they have suffered 15 years of infertility and desperate dreams of one day holding a baby in their arms?

Because this is their one chance of parenting and they, while accepting that they won't get to enjoy all of it as biological parents do, are daring to hope for as much of it as possible, including the joys of toddler years and waving a child off for their first day at school?

Because they understand the level of therapeutic parenting required for most 6 year olds in the care system and do not have the resources for the task?

Have you adopted older children, moldingsunbeams? If not, would you just give away the first six years of your child's life?

I think it is beyond wonderful that there are adoptive parents - like our lovely Lilka - who choose to adopt older children. But I absolutely refuse to condemn those who do not. Especially from people who have never been challenged to make a similar choice.

Though in this case, as someone has already said, these prospective adopters know they are not going to adopt a baby. They will have been approved for older children and invited to this event precisely because they are in the frame for 'hard to place' children. I don't' remember them saying, "Actually, we are planning on a cute blonde newborn", but please let me know if I missed that.

Perfectly said Devora!

I'd love to see someones face when its announced at their 20 weeks scan that they're going to be giving birth to a six year old!

Brilliantly put Devora.

Also, re siblings being separated. My adopted DD was separated from her older half brother because he was violent towards her.

We have written contact now but there is no way that they could have been placed together. It was totally not the little boys fault as he was just copying what he had seen but for both of their wellbeing they needed to be separated

IME the adoption process isn't that picky, in that if you are a sane, thoughtful person with the necessary resources, you will probably get taken on and probably get through to the end. By 'resources' I mean a spare room (or more, if you're up for siblings), the ability to take the time off work, and the time to be able to devote a great deal of attention to the adopted child (e.g. not taken up with other small children in the house). Newly adopted children absolutely need their own space and lots of attention, but those resource requirements do rule a lot of people out.

And then, lots of people opt out once they understand the reality of adoption, and the needs of the children involved. These threads are always full of people saying "I'd take them all home" and asking why oh why no-one will adopt these children, but they are mysteriously absent when it comes to actually applying to do so.

So I'm not convinced that the problem is social workers being too picky, but as I've said I think it would help enormously if post-adoption support was better resourced. To adopt two older boys usually means, realistically, having two spare rooms, able to take at least a year off work, and commitment to spending years providing therapeutic parenting to children overcoming serious trauma. If prospective parents were offered significant and sustained support with finance and therapy, then many many more would feel able to take on hard to place children.

No chikd will ever be perfect, it is wrong for SW to encourage them to find the 'right fit'. When you have your own biological children, you don't get that choice. My dd 6 has Asd, I would have preferred a child without, but we had to adjust and she is a beautiful, loveable gorgeous little girl. We would ever be without her. If she was at tat adoption activity day, I am sure she would have been rejected! I really hope they did not tell the children what that activity day was for, get their hoes up and ten dashed when they were not chosen!

so much respect for all those (mainly with actual experience of adoption!) who have spoken sense on this thread

for those wailing 'somebody should do something' for these children whilst condemning potential adoptive parents (that are in fact doing that 'something' for a child) SURELY you can see how hypocritical & unreasonable you are being?!

I'm a cm, and I've had to give notice to one child who wasn't compatible. Now I say this with a heavy heart, that I couldn't give her the care that she needed.

She was a perfectly happy heathly normal three year old. Im an experienced cm. We were both really unhappy around each other.

I took a really hard decision to give notice because I truly believe she would develop better somewhere else.

Now dh and I did the fostering course two years ago, but decided not to proceed for a number of reasons.

I can honestly say that the matching process is really important. A bad match would be far more devastating than no match at all IMHO.

My heart went out to all the children without families, but ultimately I think the parties are a good idea

But Piglet it's not the same with an adopted child as with a birth child.

These children have had a disrupted start to their lives so a good fit/match is absolutely essential. The last thing these children need is another family unit breaking down - that would be devastating for them

It absolutely does have to be the right fit Piglet. For the adoption to work and for the child's needs to be met.

If I had had my own child with special needs I would of course have loved that child and done everything needed to provide the right care. But nature didn't give me the ability to have my own.

I recently re read the tick list that I had to do to let SS know what issues I could cope with and which I could not. It was tough doing it at the time and reading it back all these years later I felt guilty about some if my answers.

Thank you herladyship

Of course we can't predict the future of any of our children. Though the risks of additional problems are far higher, on average, with adopted children and prospective adopters understand this.

Adopted children ALWAYS have additional needs. Some are relatively minor. Others are very seriously traumatised and damaged and life with them will be highly challenging. All prospective parents have some opportunity to define the level of challenge that they can't handle - biological parents through antenatal testing, adoptive parents through matching. And then, of course, you get the child you get and you live with (and hopefully manage) whatever issues may arise.

Biological parents often enter parenthood with blithe confidence and may be shocked when problems occur. And then life happens and they get on with it.

Adoptive parents often enter parenthood screwed up with fear about the multiple problems their children may bring and desperately hoping that they will be equal to the task. They do have some (limited) scope to specify what challenges they do not feel equal to: you are explicitly asked, for example, if you feel able to parent a child conceived through rape, or with learning disabilities on both sides of the family, or with diagnosed developmental delay. I was clear that we were not in a position to adopt a child that would require a SAHP in the long term, because we both work and fully intended to continue doing so (albeit after a break, and PT).

Now, I was already taking on an equal or increased risk of those unforeseen problems, but I was attempting to manage the level of known risk. Was that wrong? I am a working mother of advancing years with another child already in the family - I think it would be irresponsible of me not to be realistic about what I can manage, because the worst thing for everyone is disruption.

Adoptive parents cannot and do not expect 'perfect children singing edelweiss'. The preparation and the reality do not allow for that.

The programme was a useful hourlong commercial for adoption services.

I strongly disagree with the party idea even if it does number crunch well for them.

They admitted the hardest to place children were paraded here, as they said, sibling sets and older boys, yet threw a couple of young girls in the mix and very young single boys. So of course there was cherry picking.

It reminded me of my childless sister who has gone overboard with her partner's young child who they have irregular residential contact with.
She dresses her up immaculately, buys her spanking new everything, shows her off all over Facebook, slates her birth mother on Facebook too for not dressing and parading her in the same fashion she does, changes her entire outfit when she spills a single baked bean on it, takes a small suitcase out as a changing bag even though she's five, and yet when she has her for contact, the child is always sent off to crèches or to other family because she can't cope with the stress of such a 'hyper' child.

Yes, she's noisy amd outgoing, but no different to other five year olds. It's as of my sister wants a show child, a doll to dress up and play with, but really the bed wetting and tantrums and dirty scuffs on her shoes from the park are just not acceptable. Having a child wouldn't fit in to her world.

If these parties were really to ascertain chemistry, an artificial environment like that is hardly going to be conducive.

Besides which, chemistry takes time and effort. You learn to bond with a child as it grows to know you surely?

I don't believe children should have to 'fit in' with the prospective couple either. If adoptive parents return a child because it's decided they are too troublesome or lack chemistry or they can't bond, Id seriously question their motives for adopting !

They take a child, any child, who needs a loving home and they provide that loving home regardless. I've no idea if my own children 'fit in' with me or not, but even if they didn't, I wouldn't care.

If people actually wanted answers, (rather than to judge) I can't help thinking their posts would start with something like "why do adopters often prefer to adopt younger children?" Rather than "I can't believe that adopters don't adopt older children" (or the myriad of variations on that theme I've seen over the last few days).

gold you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about

I did some work for an adoption agency, I sort of already knew that siblings might be split up, but the reality of it is one of the greatest shames I think we have to bear. Some are split up because of special reasons (e.g., someone earlier said a girl had to be in an all female home) but some just because a couple only wanted one child. If I were to adopt and I found out that this would mean siblings being split up I'd have to take both or not at all. I just could not cope with that knowledge.

sorry - I mean I'd have to take them ALL or not at all, obviously sibling groups can be larger than 2.

It's very interesting to read your experience, moldingsunbeams, and I'm so glad you finally got your family. But it did and does bemuse me that you can ask "How can boys just be passed up because they are 6and not a baby" when you have that knowledge? It does imply condemnation, doesn't it?

I'm probably feeling extra sensitive because I sometimes feel a (general) pressure on adoptive parents to be angels, with well-meaning posters telling us we're marvellous. But when our halos slip (either in their eyes, or in reality because I am a not-particularly-marvellous parent) the condemnation can be quite ugly.

Which part, Hayley?

Good grief, I give up. MrsBW is right - if you prefer to judge from a position of ignorance rather than to understand through seeking knowledge, then there's probably no way forward.

I did some work for an adoption agency, I sort of already knew that siblings might be split up, but the reality of it is one of the greatest shames I think we have to bear. Some are split up because of special reasons (e.g., someone earlier said a girl had to be in an all female home) but some just because a couple only wanted one child If I were to adopt and I found out that this would mean siblings being split up I'd have to take both or not at all. I just could not cope with that knowledge.

In my years of experience with adoption I have never encountered an agency that would allow that, nor an adoptive parent who would request it.

goldface - you think every adoptive parent should take the first child they're offered. No questions asked and if not, they're going to be good enough parents anyway?!

I'm sure your DH is thrilled that's your approach to lifelong relationships... take what presents itself and just make the best of it.

If adoptive parents return a child because it's decided they are too troublesome - if I hadn't seen the heartbreak of a disrupted adoption myself I'd think your comment was naively amusing, as it is it's fucking insulting to all those adopters who after years of assessment have the trauma of knowing they have failed a child in need.

Shame its only the internet or you could beat us with a big stick for not being good enough - bad adopters, naughty adopters.