Archived Forums

I guess I didn't really word this very well. simply put, my question is;has anyone ever heard of anyone adopting a UK based child, whilst living outside of the UK temporarily??

i don't think you canhow would you go through the process? where would the social worker visit? how will you show your support network? how will you show consistency and structure?i think you might also find you have to wait a period of time to settle before you can start the process when you return tooadoption in the uk of often traumatised children is about what's best for the children and not what we as adopters wantsuze x

What you are suggesting is essentially intercountry adoption between uk and America...I don't think its possible.Would you consider adopting from the USA foster care system?The costs are minimal.It may be difficult but it is possible.

Anyway, as a foreign national, a child adopted by you from outside the USA, would not be allowed into the US."The United States Department of State reports cases each year of non-citizen parents who have legally adopted a child internationally and then find that the child cannot join them in the United States."For more infohttp://library.adoption.com/articles/i-am-a-resident-of-a-foreign-country-living-in-the-us.-can-i-adopt.html

I don't have any experience of this, but can't imagine a VA or LA who could agree to this. A large part of my recent homestudy was about my neighbourhood, with regards support network and community resources, I don't see how this could be covered if you have yet to make your home in the UK.Prior to homestudy I had to attend a preparation course, this was on a weekly basis for six weeks, again I don't know how you could do this. When I started homestudy my SW visited my home on a very regular basis, the dates were changed to suit both SW and myself, i wasn't able to book her diary in advance, this is not how SW can operate when providing front line services.It might be worth relooking at your plans, relocating sooner perhaps?I wish you luck with whatever route you take.

Garden is right that adoption from the US foster care system is free (like here you might pay for medicals or some of the criminal checks) and is also quite similar to adoption in the UK. On some of the international adopter message boards there even seem to be people getting tax breaks even though it's free!I would imagine that on returning to the UK your child would be the responsibility of your local NHS/LA if there were problems (we've been told this is the case as we are adopting from overseas).If you are UK citizens your child will get UK citizenship but they may be able to keep US citizenship, worth asking.Frankly for my money Primal Wound is rubbish, irrelevant to children who've been adopted from foster care or an institution (so much history with birth family) and no evidence apart from Nancy Verrier's own writing that it applies to children placed at birth. It's her idea but no-one else shares it.

I am not disagreeing that even being adopted without having lived with birth parents (as is the case for a lot of British adult adoptees, though not many British child adoptees at the moment) is difficult. It just isn't for the reasons that she says it is - so anything she's saying about how to put it right is not likely to be helpful either.It is very hard for a child to find out (even if gradually and right from the start) that your birth parents could not keep you, for whatever reason. It is very hard not to grow up with your birth family. It would also be hard - and likewise would be a great loss - if birth parents died around the time of birth.But what there is no evidence for is that this is hard because of trauma at the time of separation. It goes against everything we know about attachment. The evidence is that the realisation of the loss comes later, as a child becomes aware of what might have been. It doesn't make it any less hard, and it doesn't mean that if you are adopting a child who has never lived with their birth parents things will be hunky dory and you can ignore their sense of loss.

The primal wound isn't my favourite book and I found 'why love matters' by sue gerhart much better when you are talking about the adoption of tiny ones. American adoption does seem to be a very different picture to the uk, the issues of repeated early losses and traumas leave an imprint on babies early physiology long before they can cognitively remember. Stuff like the newborn baby being attracted to bm's scent (as its specific) and only seeking facial mirroring within the first few wks with bm for comfort when feeding. I do agree a lot of the stuff seen in my children is about developmental trauma but mostly it's pre verbal alarm systems being out of kilter from too much scary stuff and not enough soothing in those important early months.I wonder often if we are moving more towards a ltfc model in the uk in many ways. There are a few Christian reliquishement things that have tried to get off the ground in the uk but I dont think any have been successful because children here have complex histories and complex bps with generational issues of often undiagnosed autism, serious mental health issues etc which make informed relinquishments rare. I wOuld be interested to knOw more about the evidence that babies aren't effected by loss of bm and what age this is. Is there a book I can get on this/ article?

I would recommend Understanding Attachment: Parenting, Child Care, and Emotional Development by Jean Mercer.It talks about normal attachment and how it develops and gives a lot of the evidence (from memory) about how basically children only learn their mother/primary caregiver is "special" after several months of life.I don't think attraction to the birthmother's scent/voice/face really means that a child will necessarily be immediately damaged to the extent that Nancy Verrier thinks they will, if they are not then brought up by her. Just because you prefer something doesn't mean if it goes away you will be traumatised immediately.If you can get hold of it, this is a particularly good article:Adoption Losses: Naturally Occurring or Socially Constructed? Irving G. LeonChild DevelopmentVolume 73, Issue 2, pages 652–663, March/April 2002The problem with saying "there is no evidence for X" is that if it is really true that it does NOT happen then however hard you look, and however many studies you do, you will not find evidence for it. But all the researchers who actually collect evidence from real children find the same - attachment happens in the middle of children's first year - it's only theorists who just sit in their offices and think, basically, or sell lots of books, or work with single children and say "wow, they are doing just what I expected" that say otherwise.I get very cross when I see people pushing weird and whacky theories and treatments to parents whose child has difficulties, sorry if I'm on my soap box! The book I recommended has a really scary bit about some of the more "out there" attachment treatments, which I am happy to say don't seem to have really made it to the UK, but it's a bit frightening. That's not really relevant here though - just trying to say why I get a bit het up about this kind of thing!

Ah I have seen these, when I first adopted 10 yrs ago now. There was a lot about the early attachment process. Up til then most thought it wasn't until after 10 mths. The modern stuff in the last couple of yrs, if not 5 yrs gas all been about the in utero stuff, and very early weeks of life. Some of the 'attachment' therapy in america has been quite abusive with the holding and rebirthing etc and I'm pleased to see it hasn't really caught on here. I think you have to accePt that naturally a baby would have remained with bm and been developed with care and love chemistry into the developing brain. Children who have lost that first attachment (for whatever reason) will have a problem with attachment to some degree because of the trauma that occurs at the same time that bit of brain is in developing. Children are incredible and everyone has capacity to change. It's not about your choices really, it's below the cognitive level- they can't choose- just feel.That's why babies who are adopted or lac are needy babies often they struggle to soothe or are dazed a lot. Kate cairns in 'attachment trauma and resilience' cites all the papers on this, like the neuro connections being far less in a baby in utero at 22 wks gestation in a child who is going into fc - I can't recall off the top of my head but it was really stark- it could have been 1/5 less from memory- anyway don't take my word for it, have a look. I think if you can get the close nurturing support for baby in as early as possible amazing healing can be achieved and there is far less developmental trauma to negotiate, but I'm afraid the reality of adoption from chaotic bm's who then have lost every sight, smell and touch and voice they have known is a hugely impacting thing on a tiny baby when their instincts and chemical responses are developing.I wouldn't go with whacky short lived stuff either, are you able to get to the auk conference this yr? It's Bryan post (American guy) and he is worth looking up on you tube especially on his brain develomenty stuff (I have now watched a his oxytocin stuff- which should explain the instinctive development better than me).Really interesting discussion to have.

Thing is, there is still no evidence that attachment happens this early. Whatever is happening in utero, it does not seem to be attachment - it doesn't conform to the same patterns. It's clear that one of the most damaging things for babies is to have inconsistent care in the first 6-12 months or so of life - and those are the children who do much worse than the kids who are removed or relinquished at birth.You just can't separate other things going on before birth (drug exposure, major life stressors), genetic factors, and the growing realisation of the child that they have lost something, from the actual separation at birth. The only group that really could tell you whether the actual separation itself was the problem would be children whose previously healthy mother died at birth, and that's really rare now. Even then, children would either be told later that their mother died, or everyone would pretend that their stepmother was their biological mother, and both of those would be problematic.I'm afraid I need hard evidence to believe something is a cause of a problem, and the evidence just isn't there. Doesn't mean that it isn't a problem to be separated from your mother at birth (whether to be raised by biological family, loving foster carers, or adoptive parents), just means that the Primal Wound idea probably isn't why. There are plenty of people writing about how to talk to children removed/relinquished at birth about their adoption, and how to ensure they feel connected to their biological origins in a good way, who do not subscribe to this idea. I do know quite a bit about the science and research behind these ideas, from my job - and it makes me very cautious in reading more popular authors - because it really frightens me how some of the science can be misused. There is some great stuff out there which does explain some of the causes, though the therapies aren't keeping up with it necessarily; some of them are trying to, some of them seem to be succeeding, but some of them just "sound like a nice idea" and have never actually been tested.I can understand though that, even if it doesn't necessarily lead to a helpful therapy, it is good to have a solid reason or a range of reasons why a child is having difficulties. I see this in families I work with, where a diagnosis is really helpful just in having it, even if there's no particular change to the recommended therapy.

Interesting ....Great reading and seeing others views.Need to be careful when bringing babies in SCBU/PICU into equation.Regardless of other siblings sick and previously ill children are often parented differently and hospitalisation is not the only factor...