Archived Forums

I've looked at this and I haven't seen anything about cutting the fact that my children are forever part bf in the stopping the presumption of contact with bf.I do have a degree of sorrow for the children's bf mainly because, now they are older, I can see that they represent a lot of what my children could have become, without the support they've had to deal with their trauma. I've finished the book "zero degrees of empathy" which argues those who commit crimes and are abusive are deficient in empathy and this has challenged a lot of traditional thinking on this matter.There are lots of families who are regularly torn apart by the regular contact orders especially in the first months and years of placement, it's a disaster policy for too many to ignore and instead thinking its too much pro contact at the moment is IMO right.Actually, I'm pretty sure that the lack of contact or probability of contact is very low down the list on why people decide to adopt or not? It's about the reality when you get to matching and beyond.It's a shame because its just great when it works but its a rarity it seems.

Sounds to me like it's more about what you would like than what your DD's actually want Garden.

Thanks for posting this. We are in the difficult position of maybe having to contact a birth parent and half siblings when we do not agree it is in the best interests if Floreana.. Of course we are happy to do letterbox but I think Floreana needs to be supported to decide when she is older. I think contact now may be detrimental to her, confuse her, increase her fear that she is to be moved again and possibly negatively affect her attachment. It seems to me that contact is a bit of a social experiment and is dependent on the zeitgeist as much as familial risk. I do not want her to have contact as I believe it's ill also put us all at risk. As a new adopter I am tasked with the duty to therapeutically parent my darling . How can I do this when I am expected to undertake contact that has historically ( pre placement) upset her and triggered a fear response . S once again thanks for posting. Galapagos

"Here, there is still this idea that we can make the adoptive family the only family - IMO this is just ridiculous on so many levels". It's not about what WE want. It's about the adoptee – empowering and enabling them to CHOOSE what THEY want. Is it ridiculous for an adoptee to decide that their adoptive family is their only family? No - it's their right. We've moved into a climate where an adoptee is not afforded the choice, they're having an emotional link to their birth family forced upon them. In turn, adoptive parents are afraid to challenge this enforced link, even if their child is in turmoil over it (i.e. EVEN THOUGH THEY KNOW THEY'RE NOT ACTING IN THEIR CHILD'S BEST INTERESTS) because of opinions/attitudes akin to those which you've expressed!What you want Garden is for failed parents to not exist. Unfortunately, they do. That is why adoption exists, we give that child the place within a family that they NEED (I want to put NEED in big, huge letters!!!). There's a massive presumption being made that birth family will have continued importance to an adoptee, indeed it's presumed to such an extent that importance is being orchestrated and taught! Those adoptees for whom birth family doesn't have continued importance are looked upon as though there must be something seriously wrong with them - THAT is what I'D call 'ridiculous on so many levels'.

Adoption is complex n it is about matching families be they childless couples, single parents , couples with birth children be they heterosexual or homosexual. . The matching process is what counts. Providing good supportive nurturing environments. I agree with the extract that pear tree posted and would suggest that Neurological harm could result from contact that is socially drive as opposed to contact based on the needs and wishes of the child.

I think this thread is going off the point in places. I don't see anyone saying contact is ALWAYS bad or anyone saying they wouldn't tell their child about their birth families and early history either. I think the idea we are co-parenting in some way is in the vast majority of cases simply both untrue and undesirable - though clearly there are special circumstances where an on-going relationship with a birth family member works and IS in the child's best interest. Even if my children leave my family at 16 or 18, to rejoin their birth families and never return, I still won't view them as not being MY children. They will have spent their childhoods with me and they WILL have belonged to my family.Actually I DO think adoption is about giving a child the chance of a family of their own - albeit there is another family in the background. That's what most children want and need - I can see a lot of children would feel less secure, not more so, to feel they only sort of belonged to the adoptive family and that they were still considered part of the birth family. That doesn't mean I deny the existence of the birth family or that I don't encourage my children to express their feelings about their bfs or that I wouldn't help them make contact when the time seemed to be right. And I don't think contact is a massive issue for most people considering adoption - it's a factor, but not a deal breaker. The fact of being childless and unable to have one's own children is a hugely motivating factor to become a parent in any circumstances that one can - it doesn't mean we want to make the child solely our own with no concern for the bf, but it does mean we truly want to have children to call our own - and actually that is what most children needing adoption need too.And I don't understand this talk about us having been mis-sold adoption. Its thirteen years since we got involved and at no time did we think or were we told that adoption was just another way to get a child - the importance of the child's history and their birth family was clear from the start.All I am glad of is that in future members of the bf may be stopped from contacting underage, vulnerable adoptees before they are ready to make an informed decision for themselves.

Fruitcake thank you so much for letting us know about this. I hope it comes into law in Scotland too. We are fortunate in not having to 'worry about contact' at the moment. We didn't want it and thank goodness we said no. We even had to stop contact with their SW because in essence she was the BM's SW and frightened and destableised our DS every time he saw her or even heard that she had phoned, as he thought she was comming to take them away again - as that is what she had done many times before.We live reatively close to BF and I was in constant fear of bumping into them when our 2 were young I did infact bump into her at court when we went to see the Sheriff to grant the A.O. ( thank goodness we didn't know we could have taken the children as the Sheriff said) she was up on a charge as threats, violence and public disorder offences were part of life for BM.Also Peodophilia runs in the family. I certainly don't think this is an unusual for most adopted children to come from sever neglect as our 2 did. BM was given loads of chances and help over the years.Our children no longer live at the 'bottom of society' as we are those middle class childless parents who some on here seem to dislike.I am more than a little conserned about the comment that implies that it is wrong to move a child from the society it was born into.If that idea were to prevail where would SW be, there would be very few if any adopters.We are giving our children every opportunity to have the best education, therapy, and counciling we can find as they deserve it. They didn't ask to be born into depravity.The facebook thing is great news. We are the lucky ones in that our children are too young to be affected by it the moment and I hope that restrictions would be in place by the time it may affect them.Our DS has asked how old he has to be before he can meet his BM and I have told him. We are very open to answering any questions they have in an age appropriate way, not sugar coated but not every detail.I am happy for his to meet his BM when he is older and more able to make his own mind up. I just wish the law in Scotland was differnt and he wasn't able to contact them when he is 16 as I think that is too young.

I sense an enormous relief from the majority on this thread and it was a pleasure to bring the good news! The fact that our young and vulnerable teenagers may in future be safe from being stalked on Facebook is absolutely wonderful news and I cannot see why anyone would not welcome it with open arms.Garden - what is stopping you right now from establishing direct contact with birth mum, if a partnership in parenting with her is what you feel is best? This is a very serious topic, very close to people's hearts and there is no place for rhetoric, imo. For the minority of adopters who have established fruitful contact with your children's birth families, I salute you. That is a complex and worthwhile achievement when it is in children's best interests.This will not be relevant to most adoptive families. I can honestly say that my children's birth families are completely out of the picture except historically and genetically and we are their only current parents. And it works GREAT! As jmk says, we chose adoption, not long-term fostering (worthwhile though that is in the right circumstances).

The DC I would like to see stopped is the new baby contact which, I think, is incredibly damagingMy DD had ridiculous amounts of contact, almost daily. Taken by different family workers in a car for long journeys for an hours contact - absolutely nuts. And it prevents a good solid predictable routine developing or a bond to fc

As with all these announcements, i wonder if SWs will actually implement them, and as think potential aopters will still be trying to please sws and still so scared about loosing their children that they'll agree with sw rather than complain about contact

I think when you first come into adoption you assume that the professionals know best, including about your potential new child.

I wonder how your children would feel if they heard you say they are not "yours"?

abiee - the word is that the infant contact in particular is what they are trying to reduce obviously for LAC rather than adoptees. But it would still be possible for an infant to see a birth parent several times a week and come out of it none the worse if it was better managed. To my mind the important things would be continuity of care (in other words the FC takes them, brings them back, and is with them all the time) and behaviour of the BPs (appropriate interaction and care only or no contact).After all, many infants see granny daily who would no way be able to bring up the infant and who may be slightly strange and this doesn't harm them in the long term. Difference is that mum and dad are there all the time and take the infant there, and if granny starts being violent or giving the 4 month old chocolate buttons the parents will draw a close to visits.I doubt there are that many adopters who go on holiday with BPs but I wouldn't be surprised if there are some who spend their holidays with birth sibs living elsewhere.And there is as some have said a continuum - pingu123 gives a good example of two ends of the spectrum - we'd fall pretty close to their oldest and we have direct contact which so far has been positive and there's no way I'm a long term foster carer THANK YOU VERY MUCH. There is always the risk that bmum will not turn up for a meeting but we have to take that and we have to prepare little boy for that. And so many adoptees - and these are NOT just those who were adopted in the 1960s when it was all secret but more recently, and including those who have a happy relationship with their adoptive families and a very poor history with their birth families - speak about the connection they have with people they are genetically related to, how strongly they feel about knowing whose eyes and hair and musical talent or dyslexia they have. And many of those that meet birth family as an adult wish they'd known them earlier, or known more about them earlier.And some of them worry that saying this will upset their adoptive parents - I think that's desperately sad and I hoped it was uncommon but I can see hints of that here to be honest.And for some of them they will only ever be able to meet siblings if there are any, and they might not be able to live with them either, and that's not surprising in many cases, but for an adoptee who wants to meet members of birth family, and who's mature enough to make that decision, it should be possible.Garden said "it's just not fair IMO to take children away and make them grow up in a completely different family with no knowledge of their parallel families. "And that sums it up for me.

This part of our message boards gives our users a space to discuss issues that they are very passionate about.Please be:> respectful of other people’s views> respectful to each other - please don't make it personal> be careful of your choice of words> stay on topic and > bear in mind that, if you are upset by someone else’s opinion, you have the option to report the post to the Moderators and/or to take a step back and read another part of the message boards.We will close this thread for 24 hours.All the best,Online Community Team

I think it would be a very sad decision if the pendulum swung completely the other way and all contact was stopped, or became the rare event.It does depend on the child - and all children are different. They have different experiences and also different reactions to the same experience (thinking siblings here).But contact, IMO, should be considered for all children and only dismissed if it genuinely isn't in the child's best interests. The birth parents wishes, and adoptive parents wishes should come secondary to this. Again, this is my opinion, and I do know others will disagree - especially as adopters are usually bottom of the pile of having their feelings considered.But contact does work for some children, and is beneficial, and is even wanted in some cases.My dd has contact with various members of her bf. Some works better than others. But if she hadn't had to contact, she wouldn't have the knowledge that she has now about her bf.Some of that has helped her take off her rose coloured specs. Some has given her the ability to move on. Some has reassured her. Most has helped her cope with her memories and feelings. I'll admit, some has been negative - and we stopped that particular contact because it wasn't working for her.Deep down, I would love it if she had no contact. If it had been my choice, without considering dd, I wouldn't have contact. I hate sharing her. But I know I have to share her. And, I think it's because I am so open to her having the contact that she does, that she feels more secure with me, and more open to talking to me when she needs to talk about her bf. She won't talk to others that she knows thinks she should cut all ties with her bf.Contact is a difficult thing. But it does, and can work. It also can be the worst idea for some children. Dd's sibling, for example, has no contact - it's not the right thing in her case.I really believe that contact shouldn't be black and white, but should be honestly considered - without prejudice - for each individual child, and only happen (or not happen) if the decision is best for the child.I guess there are different forms of contact as well: those that the child has some input into (direct contact, or exchange of letters which the child sees), and that which the child is unaware of until they're older, but which gives them the option of following up when they're older, if they want to. Or not.It'll never be an easy thing to decide upon, and I suspect it'll never be a subject that adopters will agree on (or even SWs, for that matter).

Fehrscaper - having now read the consultation document that Trish refers to, I can tell you that the pendulum did swing briefly the other way, but has now settled at the mid point!The government did propose a presumption against birth family contact after adoption in the consultation originally, which would have been the pole opposite of the current situation in which there is a presumption in FAVOUR of contact after adoption. However, after consultation they are now recommending that there should be no presumption either way, but that each case should be decided on its merits.Nevertheless, make no mistake this is a paradigm shift. The 1989 Children's Act is, I believe, what was behind the introduction of a presumption of birth family contact being in most children's best interests, as preserving birth family contact and its importance is a central tenet of the Act. (The practice of "open adoption" in voluntary relinquishments in the US is mostly a red herring, I believe.)If the bill is enacted, it will be possible to apply for a "No Contact Order" at or after the Adoption Order. And there will also be a filter for birth parents who wish to apply for contact after adoption. (They will have to seek permission to seek permission, in effect.) So it WILL be possible to prevent birth family contact on pain of criminal proceedings. Finally, the child's safety and the integrity of adoptive families is to be put first. Hoorah!There will be absolutely no barrier to continuing birth family contact after adoption where that is in a child's best interests.It is not in MY children's best interestes to have ongoing contact with their birth families before age 18 though yes we do talk freely about their birth families and yes I would warmly support them in making contact in adulthood if they felt a need to do so and no I would not feel remotely threatened by this, thespouses. (Hope that's clear.) I do respect others who maintain contact, especially if it is clearly helping their children: good for them.The families my adopted children came from were mostly families with difficulties that I have fortunately been spared. My children are in fact irredeemably middle class and no we didn't begin to try to engineer this. They just seem to want to be like us. They do have a strong identification with their birth cultures of origin though, which we strongly support. This is easy and pleasant for us to do as there is a lot of crossover of ethnicity and culture in our multi-cultural family.

I hold my hands up, I do want my daughter to be mine - I don't want her to be anything like bf and wish that, for her childhood years, they do not exist. I do not hide their existence, I do not hide the reasons why she was adopted, we talk about all things honestly and openly. She was always told that I would help her find them when she was older.We had letter box that they never bothered to keep up, that meant every year Miss X would ask about the letters and I would have to tell her that they hadn't been sent - in her best interests? Helping her or reminding her of the rejection? I obviously stopped writing. Now! They are all coming out of the wood work - hunting her down on Facebook one by one. She is not old enough to handle it, especially when they are telling her that they have the higher power (over me!) as blood is thicker than water - in her best interests? Confusing her? Who is actually trying to get her to choose, me or them? She has had direct contact with some siblings, although this seems to be ok I doubt I would ever do it again, the constant reminders that I am not her 'real' mum, I think hurts her. She wants me to be her real mum, she wants to have come out of my tummy. It would be nice if she could have at let pretended that until she was older. I have no qualms about her finding them and having a relationship with them when she is adult, I just wish she had been able to have a childhood without their intrusions - time to grow in self confidence, esteem and resilience and I do feel that continued contact has hampered that and her sense of permanence within our family. She is mine, she is not theirs and I will do everything in my power to help her to feel that - whilst still accepting that they exist. But allowing her to move on from them and their life style, I want to give her a chance at life - not have her dragged back to her past life every now and again.

I think BT makes an extemely good point. It's about claiming you child and your child claiming you as his/her Mum. This is almost impossible if the child is constantly being kept in touch with her past and family that possibly damaged her. How can a child ever feel really settled and have permanance if she is constantly being made to keep in touch with her past.I am all in favour of helping our children re-engage with their BF, but only when they have reached maturity and that might not happen until they are adults.What I also think is completely wrong is that SS are allowed to contact the adopted child when they reach 18, to tell them or encourage them to look at their file and to contact their birth family. This is so wrong IMO because I believe any reunions or request for reunions should be instigated by the Adoptee and the Adoptee only, when he/she reaches the point in her life where she feels a need to do so, be that at 18, 30, 50 or whatever age she feels the need to do so. Contacting an adoptee on their 18 birthday and saying "right it's time you met your other family" is just wrong.Disclaimer:-(By the way these are just my own personal opinions - I know not everyone will agree with me).

bt - a powerful post and I do agree with you. Maybe consider writing to your M.P. to give him/her extra encouragement to vote for the bill?jmk - I have had 3 reach 18 so far and none has received such a letter, even though we have definitely had contact with the post-adoption team. I would have been horrified to have the initiative for contact taken out of my sons' and daughter's hands. Contact should remain a matter of their best interests and initiated by them, imo. And age 18 can be a very inappropriate age for some young people to have to negotiate all this. Grrr!

Our LA will ask the adoptee at age 18 whether they wish to continue with Letterbox contact, which can then continue until age 25. If they don't want to continue then it will be stopped. Birth family have no say in it. They will be offered the opportunity to see their files but will not be "encouraged" unless they wish it.