Archived Forums

The bill is still in the discussion stages. I've had a read through the consultations, proposals etc. and it seems that, whilst social networking has been mentioned in lots of submissions (in the main, about how unauthorised contact has the potential to jeopardise the security of a placement, and can put a child at risk), the general consensus seems to be that there isn't really anything that can be done in a legislative sense. In fact it suggests that the onus for protecting our kids will still lie with adoptive parents. I do hope though there will be more about consequences of this type of contact in the finer detail. I don't think legislation is the issue here though, problems are perpetuated/created in practice. You could put any legislation in place and social workers will still interpret their own way. There seems to be a great deal of evidence that unauthorised contact has a severely disruptive affect, and can cause profound upset and disturbance (not to mention putting a child at risk). When you consider the cack-handed way that social services currently deal with post adoption contact, I for one can't help but wonder just how often their 'authorised' efforts result in exactly the same situation. The alleged birth father of my daughter requested letterbox contact. I have looked at this man (who has never met my daughter) in a completely objective way, and I have presented him hypothetically to one or two people whose judgement I value and respect a great deal (in case I'm not being completely neutral). I've not been able to identify a single thing that could be considered positive or encouraging, something that could lead me to trust that contact would be in my daughter's best interests. I can't even blindly consider that he is her biological father, and put all my trust that contact is corret on that, because there is a fair chance he actually ISN'T her biological father! In spite of this, and in spite of current legislation (which is over a decade old, so should be well read and understood by now!) making clear that contact should be for the benefit of the child alone, the social worker allocated to our daughter (prior to her adoption) was wholly preoccupied with the alleged birth father. She pushed forcefully for contact, and at no point during her efforts on behalf of this man (for whom she had no professional responsibility) did she mention the best interests of our daughter. Her concern was entirely about 'fairness' to him. Prior to adoption order, I felt that I had to appear equivocal about this, so I fumed silently (whilst agreeing to nothing). I only felt confident enough to address it (and address I did) AFTER we had gotten our adoption order. How many adopters though are agreeing to poorly considered contact prior to adoption order, because they think they have no choice? Judging by the amount of threads we see on the adopters section about contact concerns, I'd say it was happening far too often.

Madrid - no problem, hope things get better for you soonMGM - thanks for the info on the bill. I was just reading today's Daily Mirror and the stuff said by the father of the girl who recently committed suicide following bullying on ask,fm. He argued that there needs to be legislation to prevent people slandering others online or encouraging suicide. David Cameron on the other hand thinks there is already adequate laws and that its up to parents to protect their kids ( sound familiar) trouble is that the Internet is so pervasive, kids will get access to it at friends or school or smartphones, its well nigh impossible to prevent a determined teenager. On the other hand ,unmodulated sites will always spring up so how do you prevent it happening? difficult dilemma. I think all we can do is restrict while very young and gradually guide our kids , warning them of dangers and on how to act responsibly.