Archived Forums

While I am open to the idea of a 2 state solution, DH and our son have a blinkered view and are pursuing a single state solution, so that's what I'm going with for now. Any mention of the second state in front of our son is met with the same disgust he reserves for the royal family, being an avid repulican, unlike the rest of the family!

I think this is pretty much were we are, at least with dad and little bro are concerned. I have now met dad three times, twice with Simba and little bro. We have had two great days out and they have meant so much to Simba. I dont want to deprive Simba of his relationship with his brother so I do have to accept dad as part of the package. But I quite like dad, unlike birth mum he has been a constant presence in Simba's life including his time in FC, from what I know he has always tried to work alongside SWs but it took him a long time to turn his life around, too long for Simba, but he has now done it.I do think theres something in the fact that dad is no threat to my role as Simba's mum and vice versa, so in one sense it is a bit easier for us to be in this two state situation. But I am consious of the enormous power that I have, I decide when he can see Simba, how often and for how long - makes me a bit uncomfortable to be honest. Its very early days but if things continue are they are I can see a future with Simba going off for weekends and holidays - though not for a long time yetI do feel very differently about birth mum, I would be fibbing to myself if I wasnt concerned about my role as mum, but she hasnt turned her life around in the same way as dad has and she is not in a good place, her future seems bleak and I dont want Simba exposed to that until he is old enough to make some sense of it.So I can see how the two state can work but equally understand why, dependent on the childs history its not desirable.I think in the facebook age though adoptive parents are fooling themselves if they think that birth families will never put in an appearance. However succesful adoptions are, the children will still always be adopted and we just have to accept that birth families exist - how far we embrace them depends on a lot of other factors, but we are foolish to ignore them

we definitely live in a 2 state solutionBF are a constant presence in our lives and actually we're comfortable with that - in many ways it enriches our lives, in other ways it is difficultDizzy wants to grow his hair and wanted to know what it might look like - we were able to point to the pictures of his younger full sib and say "just like that" (we have one toddler photo of Dizzy and the hair is identical!)A bit like Serrakunda, birth mum has turned her life round and we have good (actually excellent) letterbox contact with her, unfortunately birth dad has disappeared off the map and is by all accounts still in a sorry stateOur boys have too many memories of time with BF and they hold too big a place in their hearts and history for our situation to be anything other.Life story work in our family is a constant ongoing process and an open one, something outsiders (ie MIL) sometimes find a bit difficult when stuff is raised casually by the kids at the dinner table.In some ways I think it makes us more their 'forever family' - we have made it clear that we stick with them whatever - forever, but that their BF are important too.

We're 2-state, largely because BM is a lot less chaotic, plus ED was removed at 10, and had a loving and caring first 5-6 years so has happy memories as well as unhappy ones. I will never be 'Mum' to ED in the way I am to YD (removed at 2). But that's OK, our whole family set up is far removed from Mummy & Daddy, 2.4 children and a labrador but we are still a family I am more comfortable about having the control that Serrakunda (OMG I'm a control freak!). Because of all sorts of factors BM is unlikely ever to be able to provide a stable home for the girls, and now - without wanting to sound snooty, her upbringing, poor education etc wasn't her fault, and nor are large elements of her current circumstances - the girls have grown beyond what she could provide. BM is glad the girls have stability, care and opportunities she isn't able to give them, and is very supportive of them being with me (and has been willing to put that in writing when we were having SW troubles). So although I do have my jealous moments (!) I don't feel threatened.I can also see a future where the girls spend a weekend or few days with her - ED wants to already and at 13, and where BM is right now, I think that will happen soon. Both girls already spend an occasional weekend with their previous carers (who have also supported the girls to be heard by SWs who would rather tick boxes than listen).As we are a cross-cultural/racial/language family these visits are a great way for the girls to stay in touch with their origins and maintain significant relationships. I make sure that they don't visit so often that they get confused about who 'mum' is and where 'home' is.But as a single mum (living overseas from Grandma & Grandpa), having a weekend off now and then is very pleasant!

It's not 'sold' as that, and nor should it be. No two adoptions are the same (and that is why research, into adoption in general, is so scant - it's more or less impossible to reach any overall consensus). Each adoption should be treated on merit when it comes to openness – the benefits and challenges have to be considered and tailored to the individual child(ren). It's just stupidly obvious that you can't approach EVERY adoption with a 2 state solution in mind - it shocks me that a social worker would say such a thing.It's interesting that the move towards more openness, and links to an adoptees past, are ideas that were actually formed, and applied, out of research/feedback/lessons learned from those to whom 'modern adoption' doesn't apply. In 'modern adoption', the picture is that the majority of birth parents won't be able to maintain appropriate relations/boundaries, they won't keep promises. There will also have been a great deal (guaranteed, according to some) of trauma experienced by the child (not just emotional, physical – there's the subconscious too apparently), therefore surely maintaining contact in ANY of these circumstances is just too high risk in terms of further trauma?I see a definite contradiction there in the assertion that modern adoption isn't remotely akin to traditional adoption, yet people approach it as though they ARE akin.

I think it's out of anyone's control and it is a 2 family solution. Or even a 3 family or a 4 family - if siblings are placed with different adopters.Even if people start off with no contact at all, Facebook will rear it's head eventually - unless the bf really aren't interested at all. Or, if not Facebook, then something similar in the future.And Facebook is totally unregulated and there is no real control over it - however careful you may be.Added to the change in law that means adopted children are contacted at 18 to see if they want contact... I don't think the 2 family is avoidable - at some point in the childs lives (even if it doesn't happen until they are an adult).

We certainly weren't "sold" adoption as it used to be. In fact the first authority we approached were so negative (basically telling us we would ruin our life) that we waited for two years before approaching another.As for "forever family" I see that more as for the children not the adults. i.e. that this new family will be there for you and won't abuse or neglect you. Also it differentiates adoption from foster carers for them - that this placement is different to all the last ones and that these people will look after you for the rest of your childhood.

Wa! I'm so interested in your responses!I can see in families where there's a positive turn around in bps or a supportive bf member that the face to face/ letterbox contact often works wellWe have met lots of adopters over the years that see eg birth grandparents often to great effectBut The sw meant something very differentShe meant that the child still is part of the birth family as well as being part of their adoptive familyFc and other transient carers inbetweenBut we are sharing Moreover, giving the children the message that we are your adoptive family, but you have this other family too who you (perhaps) don't see anymore but will always be important too.Things with fb and whatever follows it is that the preparedness for our young people must start earlier and be more about helping them manage a 2 state solution if it comes to them suddenlyI think that's a shocker to mostPlus I'm not sure it's a catastrophe avoided (ie the child being groomed and clearing off one night) by doing the 2 state solutionIt's sw's assumption kind of based on curiosity about bf in the bad old days of children not knowing anything about being adopted, I thought, but actually it's referring to now and I thought all that had long gone?But our children struggle with curiousnessIe aren't naturally curiousBut they so seek affectionAcceptance love and obsessional (slightly deceptive?) patterns... This is what I think clandestine bf contact can offerIncidentally we decided to tell why we were worried about partridge on fb to partridge and really part of the risk is bf and he's not in the least interested So on one hand no 2 state solution here but it's like the bf affect the children so much it's like a ghost partner!

It's interesting PT, the point about the 'bad old days' and how things have changed. The question which we can't yet answer is, have things changed for the better? We know plenty about how adoptive parents and social workers feel about openness, and the majority of us recognise the logic behind it, because, on the surface, it appears to be a better approach. We have feedback from adoptees who were subject to confidential adoption (though sadly not definitive or concise feedback. And in any case, and maybe I'm just being cynical, I do wonder how much that adoptee feedback has influenced the current trend towards open adoption, and how much of it is about legalities and other things that really shouldn't be an influence). What we don’t really have though is the one thing we'd like – ample feedback from adoptees who've been involved in open adoption. There's an issue in how openness is being applied. It's being applied as though there IS ample feedback and empirical evidence. There is still much confusion around what open adoption means. It seems to me that authorities and agencies are applying it as far as their own understanding goes. I'm sure that it's paid 'lip service' by many social workers without any serious organisation or consideraiton around impact being involved. My personal understanding (and application of it) isn't anywhere near a 2 state solution. Your 'ghost partner' analogy reminds me of an article I read about adoptees in confidential adoptions, and how some had struggled with fantasies (about 'ghost' parents). Some quite alarming evidence had come out of early research (albeit patchy evidence, as most research on the subject currently is) that information and contact with birth parents wasn't eliminating these fantasies, and in fact could encourage/worsen fantasy. It also said that negotiating two sets of parents with differing value systems (this point probably concerns more the kids who have direct contact) is just too much for a young child, they're not equipped for it, and as such they may end up rejecting both value systems. The concern was that rather than resolving identity issues, it could actually just increase confusion. There is much to consider around open adoption, and I think as parents we have to keep an open mind (whilst dealing, or having dealt with in the course of adopting, unerring social workers who view open mindedness as old fashioned superstition! ), and give consideration to both the arguments for and against.

I am stunned too. I think there is a lot that they think but dont share with us.Mind you, if they did, there would be a dramatic fall in the rate of adoptions!I read your post earlier today and its been on my mind all day. Guess there's an element of reality in it, but still very unnerving nonetheless.