Archived Forums

From what I read there is going to have to be a proper reason for maintaining or ending contact, and SWs will need to justify how the decision is in the child's best interests. That seems to me far better than a presumption either way - and SWs having to make a clear case for whatever they're recommending. Of course, that should be happening anyway, but often isn't...Direct contact is beneficial for my DDs, although in different degrees because their large difference in age means they have had very different experiences of their BM. It also helps me that I'm in control of the process (and in fact initiated it) and am allowed to end it if necessary (i.e. if she becomes so chaotic again that they will experience further disappointments).But I could explain in what ways I thought it was helping them, and if it wasn't helping them then I wouldn't allow it to continue.

I think that the vast majority of adopters do, do what is in their child's best interests and as long as contact isn't set in stone it should work, because your child may or may not change their mind about contact as they grow up, and as long as you are flexible about their needs/desire or lack of desire for contact, then there should be no problems at all. Where problems can occur, is where pressure is put on a child, or a parent, to maintain contact when they feel it isn't benefitting anyone.So flexibility is key here with the option to opt out or in at any time if the childs circumstances/needs change.It is supposed to be about the childs needs afterall, not the BP's or the adoptive parents needs.

I didn't realise that some SW contact the Adoptees to see if they want to see their files or that the BF want contact at 18. If that is the case it would be 16 in Scotland.Absolutely the wrong age to be hearing this.Appart from anything else many of our children are young for their age emotionally and I feel SW just don't seam to realise what is in the best interest e of the child. The law is an A-- as they say.

Bt, couldn't have said it better myself. My children are mine. I've never denied the existence of their birth families and nor do I feel in the least threatened by their existance. But, for now, they're mine and I will not share them with anyone else. I know what's best for them and them feeling torn in two directions isn't in their best interests.

I think the different experiences of the families contributing to this tread just proves how contact needs to be flexible. My dd's contact arrangements have changed over the years - I've actively changed it, depending on dd's wishes (as she's grown older and able to express them with a clear understanding of the consequences involved). But also, based on my opinion of what's best for her. (I have also stopped contact where no response from the bf arrived. That really isn't in my dd's interests, IMO).It definitely isn't the best thing for some - perhaps most - children to have contact. It's such a difficult area. I'm glad it seems it'll be more flexible - but I really hope it's based on the adoptive parents view, and not a SW view. At least after they become the experts on their children (ie, after they've been placed for a while).

We have sent a few contact letters and feel it is currently a complete farce (1) we get nothing back that is remotely useful, (2) we have not yet broached the fact that the children aren't ready to be told that the letters exist, (3) we write to them, they write to the children thinking(?) that the children see the letters or are made aware of some of the contents (see '2' about it being a farce).So, why on earth do social workers persist with a default setting of "must do contact letters, always".In fairness, the 1st letter from the BM was so inappropriate that the Local Authority sent it back for rework rather than send it to us, so, full marks to the LA for that What have other people done ?? Told the BPs that the children do not know about the letters (our inclination is to do just that in due course to keep things honest) ..... or carry on with the current arrangement which seems like a farce ?

Wondered why you aren't sharing the letters with the children?Is it because you want to keep them til they are older to read when they can understand?I'm pretty sure my children's bps got no help whatsoever in doing appropriate letters.Perhaps getting some subtly put ideas in your reply like it would be lovely to hear how you are doing and if you we're good at sport at school because SON is very good at running

I think m_and_a you must go with your own instinct on this. My advice is to look (very carefully) at contact on merit, and certainly not as a tool that will be useful for all adopted children. It is incredibly difficult in the early years, because we have to make the decisions around contact on our child's behalf. Your quandary is sadly typical of that which most adopters face in current times, i.e. that contact should always be considered (in fact, it's commonly sold as a necessity) without consideration being given to the background/age/circumstances of the child. I feel very frustrated when I read/hear of adopters who are indulging social workers, birth parents and other parties whilst, in their heart, feeling very strongly that this isn't the right thing for their child. My thoughts on it all come not only from the perspective of an adoptive parent, but also as an adopted adult, and my thoughts are thus. Keeping lines of communication open on behalf of an adoptee is one thing, however establishing or maintaining an emotional link must be the adoptees decision alone. I see and read all too often tales of very young children who are clearly distressed by contact (possibly on a very deep level). They aren't at an age, or a stage of emotional maturity, where they can make their OWN informed decision. It's NOT an adoptive parents (or a social workers, or anyone else's) right to orchestrate how an adoptee will feel about their birth family. It appears to me that, in terms of advice, the pendulum has swung from instructing adoptees to have no depth of feeling about birth family, to instructing them to have a significant depth of feeling.I think it's pretty awful in fact that adoptees are currently having emotionally obligatory contact forced upon them, particularly when they're very young. It seems to be borne from an assumption that adult adoptees, pretty much in their entirety, yearn for their birth family, and are living lives that are empty/unfulfilled etc. I cant find any compelling (as it would need to be, to substantiate and merit the current obsession with contact) evidence that this is a common theme amongst adult adoptees. It's certainly not my reality. I have a successful family and career, and quite frankly I couldn't give a stuff what my alcoholic birth father does in his spare time! The bottom line is that I own the right (and I always have, straight from the off) to express the desire (or lack thereof) for contact.

I don't think there is a right or wrong answer here. From a personal point of view, I don't feel that I have the right to deny my children contact (we just have letterbox) with their birth family.My children did nothing wrong. They were forcibly removed and forcibly placed with me and my husband. They have a birth family out there who really exist - walking the streets, going on holidays, having birthdays etc.To deny them knowledge of these people seems kind of unreasonable to me. I know it is emotionally draining to have to manage the fall-out from contact, but sometimes not having contact can be just as bad. And from experience, it becomes a bigger issue as they grow older and start asking more questions.So I personally think it's just something you should do for the longer term good of the children. Otherwise they could grow up having unrealistic hopes about their birth family and getting in touch with facebook when they are in their early teens. It is much better, I think, to control the whole thing from the start. My children have been able to see that their birth parents don't always write when they should, that they write inappropriate letters, that they are having not very interesting lives. They are not remotely glamorous people. There is nothing exciting to be had by contacting them.If you don't have this, I think you are really vulnerable to the child taking matters into his/her own hands later on.

My experience is that the young adoptee will do what they like later on anyway, regardless of whatever support or help you have given them.

That's really sad, Madrid. I'm really sorry.I do think though that if things do go wrong later on, at least they can't accuse you of having kept the birth family away from them. These kids get to see their files aged 18 and they will be able to see letters sent by the birth family and at least if you have passed them on, or at least disclosed the contents in some way, they can't get you on the "you never told me" accusation.

Thank you, FK. Very sweet of you xx.As much older children, they were well aware of what their BPs were like. But once they reach a certain age, they go off and find other birth relatives who are most "unsavoury" in our case.Nothing we can do about it and SS do not guide or advise. So the young people float about, dealing with very dodgy people and, the one set of people with their best interests at heart - us - are ignored. We are not worth anything now. We have done our job.And so we have to move on and let them get on with things themselves even though we know they are incapable of managing these very difficult situations themselves.

Madrid is right. The adopters of our daughters siblings foloowed ss guidelines and allowed the minimum of contact. They believed their children were not interested in their siblings. However, as mid-teens they have voted with their fingers and got in touch with their siblings through facebook and now, as their parents have accepted the inevitable, they all have direct contact. They have not shown any inclination to do the same with birth mum (who is aware of the contact) or the rest of the adults in the birth family although obviously they can see everyone on the internet.I feel that as we have spoken often of our daughters adoption and where her siblings are etc, it has helped her move onto this next stage more easily. We did not get any fallout when they had their first face to face meeting, just nerves as to how it would go.I guess we are very fortunate not to experience any problems particularly as we are "birth family" !

The original post here was about Facebook contact. That is the one that really concerns me, and I wanted to follow that up. It sounded , in the original past, as if Facebook can be banned if its a problem, not that Facebook contact will be automatically banned. Can anyone clarify? The difference matters because once contact has been made the damage is done.And having to seek a legal restraining order takes time.

Peartree - emotional readiness of the children.... evidenced by their reaction to ussitting down with them saying we're going on holiday, showing them the map and letting them see for themselves the name of their former home-town which was 100+ miles away from where we'd drive through on a major motorway.The blood drained from their cheeks.Specific reasons for showing them the map include a need to visit family members at the other end of the country, so, best to broach the possibility of seeing familiar town names on the road signs rather than on a motorway somewhere at 70mph.

Well, if you think that my post is taking the thread off-course, then I'll leave you all to it!In fact, it was through Facebook that it all started!

I wasn't thinking anything had gone off course, discussions do wander around and I am pleased it has, i particularly value your contribution Madrid because it echoes things i often wonder about adoption. it's been a fascinating discussion. I just wanted to ask about something that bothered me in the original post and that I never got round to asking because of the thought provoking discussion on this theme. .

I'm really sorry, pingu.In a bad place at present. Probably shouldn't have posted on here.I do apologise for jumping down your throat.x

Pingu facebook is run on private servers; so it can't be 'banned' on any universal scale. I presume the new legislation will make contact via social networking akin (i.e. considered to be as serious, and worthy of the same consequences by a court) as illegally contacting an adoptee by (for example) regular post, telephone or in person. Perhaps, currently, illegal contact via social networking isn't treated as 'harshly' by courts as other forms of illegal contact? I think it will still have to be the best efforts of the adoptive parents to 'handle' social networking. If a child is determined to contact birth family, then sadly there is only so much you can do to prevent it. If a child is concerned about being contacted by birth family (as was my biggest worry as an adopted child), then they may choose not to have facebook (or they can have privacy settings utilised to the max). I rather suspect that being found or conacted by birth family has always been a scary prospect for (some) adoptees.The bill that is referenced in the OP appears to be mainly concerned (well, in the sections which relate to post adoption contact) with amendments made over a decade ago that have resulted in a culture of 'presumed contact'. The changes a decade ago around contact were actually about older children, who were more likely to have established links to their birth families. The impact on younger children, who had no established link with birth family, wasn't considered as far as I can see. In practice, the amendments have led to blanket decisions about contact (because there's a very poor understanding about the purpose of contact. It was never intended to be about maintenance of relationships, as they were, with birth family. It was meant to allow children to understand their life history, to integrate the past with the present, and move on).

I must have been having a really bad day, I never meant to suggest Facebook be banned. It wad just a personal deeply felt distrust of their default open-ness which is fine if everyone in the world has good motives and intentions.Realy, It was contact through facebook ( or any other social media) I was talking about. When my ds1 was adopted, sw told him he was not allowed to see his bm till18 , at which point he would get to see his files. Yet she contacted him at 15. He did not want this contact, doesn't feel ready for it. fortunately he is mature enough, and just blocked her, but how many have had problems, we have seen on the boards. My post was just wondering what the bill was actually proposing. it would only really help in terms of tightening up contact arrangements if birth parents were only allowed social media contact, if pre arranged and in the child's best interests, just as happens with other types of contact. I know we can't stop kids looking. It has to be action against birth parents encouraging it, or making the contact ahead of child coming of age. After all, if they visited they would have to send them home again.Otherwise the proposal is worthless