Archived Forums

The thing is, there is concern about UK policy on adoption. We adopters may take a different line but as far back as I can remember, there has been an anti forced adoption movement. Personally I think they are allowed to campaign if they want to. We just need to make sure that auk and so on represent the alternatives. I notice that the Times dropped its very forceful campaign against forced adoption a few years ago. For a while the journalist Camilla Cavendish really had us on the back foot. She went into David Cameron's policy unit for a while and I thought things might change but no, nothing. And tbh the Ellie Butler case is making people wary of supporting families who cry mis treatment as She was returned against good evidence and then killed. Michael Gove is hugely pro adoption and so we do have support in cabinet.

I am perfectly fine with people having a critical view on non-consensual adoption and I would be highly surprised if there were no movement against it. Personally, I think it is the most child-centred approach. However, this article is of a questionable standard. It draws a direct line from forced adoptions in the 1950s, where children were removed for reasons such as that the mother was single, to today, where children are removed because the children's lives are in danger. The article is also misleading in its use of numbers. It states that half a million women had children removed in the 1950s-1970s as if that had any relevance for today. The benefits of adoption are kept as vague as possible ("many see it as a priority for protecting children") and the effects of trauma, ACEs or other relevant information are not mentioned. Another things that bothers me, is that this is published on Wikitribune. This is a news outlet that claims to publish articles that are balanced and based on facts.

I don't think leaving it to AUK and the government is enough on its own. If nobody joins in public discussion on issues then one sides views become the accepted wisdom. I am clear in my head that neither of my kids was a forced adoption - both wanted new parents and both are quite definite that we are mum and dad. Are the people who mistreat kids and allow or perpetrate abuse to be allowed to prevent the kids rescued from them from having the security and happiness of a decent family life? Not only does that prolong the child's suffering ,but I would suggest it is also against the international generally recognised rights of children.

If my son hadn’t been removed from his birth family his life would have been unimaginably grim. As it is, in utero damage and early life trauma and neglect has left him profoundly damaged. Adoption gave him the best chance of living a normal life. His birth mum did not want him and did not contest his removal or adoption. She went on to have more children, all of whom have been removed at birth. The way in which modern day adoption is portrayed in this article makes me very angry indeed.

Sometimes you are better off not engaging. I'm not just making that up. I had media training in my last job and one of the best ways to dampen sth down is to ignore it. If you engage with these people then it can take on a life of its own. I am not saying do nothing because I don't believe in adoption but it can be an effective tool to just not engage.

Perhaps rather than engage directly it would be more effective to write something from your own experience (non-identifying I mean but realistic) - so the alternative view is covered without publicising or validating the original view

I think WikiTribune works like Wikipedia. Anyone can just edit a text.