Public Forums

I can remember reading about this a few years ago and I don’t think it’s as simple as race. They wanted to adopt a young baby/child with no additional needs. As we know that’s not realistic. So maybe they did need challenging?

We were turned down by two agencies second time around. We wanted one child. They wanted adopters who were willing to consider sibling groups. We also weren’t a priority as we’d already adopted. And there were adopters waiting. Not discrimination. Just the way it was.

We did adopt again - twice - via different authorities. Why did they not try other authorities with a more diverse population?

I’m not hugely sympathetic I have to say - more productive ways of spending your time, energy and money?

None of us have an absolute right to a family via adoption. It’s not about us and our needs - it’s about finding families for children.

I remember it as well and it is like you say Donatella. It is an interesting case anyway I think. I wonder what the consequences of the judgement to come will be.

We were also turned down by our LA, ironically because we are white. We asked other agencies, were taken on board and ended up adopting transracially. However, the social worker of two white British children told us during our matching phase that they were looking for a "better ethnic fit" than we could offer. We are White European. So there is some craziness out there.

The fact that some papers and tv magazines report about this as if a loving home is all that is needed and that anyone somehow has a right to a child bothers me too. They don't look at it from the perspective of the child at all and ignore the challenges of transracial adoption.

The court decided in favour of the couple.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-50674761

I saw. What a waste of tax payer money. That £100k could have been better spent on supporting existing adopters. I dare say lessons will be learned. Where have we heard that before?!

I agree Donatella - a bizarre decision I thought - and one that is contrary to all child centred adoption policy and not a good use of public money as the assumption that they have to then adopt from overseas is wrong. If someone within the agency told them that they should be fired / disciplined

It is hard to get details, but if this LA has placed any BAME children with white adopters, then this is a case of racial discrimination.

Is that what happened - I hadn't picked that up - it could be if it were the case though it would depend on the circumstances (if hard to place etc) - I thought they'd been told they did not have any white children they could place with them and they would have to adopt overseas - which is not the case and then spent a lot of money doing so and claimed this money back

By the way I logged in without putting in all the password - omitting the secret code part

Interesting, I could do that too! Do you think this is something that has deliberately changed, or something nobody has noticed (shhhh, perhaps we should keep it quiet, it's so much easier!)

About this case, I saw a snippet on the news about it and they interviewed the couple. It seemed that they had approached the local authority they had turned the couple down.

Not a good use of the local authority's money, Why couldn't some sort of arbitration have been set up so that this couple could have been assessed perhaps by another local authority / agency instead? apparently they were awarded a lot of money which enabled them to adopt internationally.

I must admit it took me back to the early stages of our adoption process. When I rang the local authority in which we live, I was told, before I had given my name or any details that "there are no white babies to adopt". I was a little taken aback that they came straight out with that when they didn't even know my ethnicity nor my adopting intentions (We were interested in older children anyway). I felt I had been judged on my voice alone.

I got a totally different response when I contacted an agency. They were so much more encouraging.

Re logging in, it’s been changed on purpose. The login page says “For users involved in family finding, please enter your security PIN. Community only users do not need to enter their PIN.”

As far as I know the LA refused them because they didn't have any children which would have been a racial match.

As I said, we were also turned down by our LA because we are white. However, the law has changed since then and it states clearly that ethnicity should just be one factor among many.

"Alice Noon, head of adoption at the Coram Foundation, said she had never seen such a clear-cut case of the new adoption law being broken. Speaking to the Guardian she said: “I am astonished because in our agency we have worked really hard to move people on to the law and their understanding of it.” She said the case should highlight the new law and help end the old-fashioned practice of “same ways placements”. Noon said: “It just so far off what the law says. They [the Manders] would have every grounds for complaint, because they have not been treated as they should have been. The law is really clear about prioritising all of children’s needs and not exclusively thinking about ethnicity and ethnic match.”" https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jun/27/council-berkshire-refusal-british-sikh-couple-adopt-white-child-sandeep-reena-mander

Hi, I read that agencies shouldn't turn adopters down entirely for cultural heritage or ethnicity reasons but they do. Dont they?

Has anyone experienced this?

Does anyone know why the UK did not recognise domestic adoptions made in Thailand up until 2013?

They do recognize them now if made after 2013.

Problem is very bad for children adopted before 2013.

Information on another country in a similar situation may help.

Hi Scot Thai, I have done a bit of research and the only thing I can find that may help is this: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/1801/made

It's The Adoption (Recognition of Overseas Adoptions) Order 2013 and it looks like it is changes to the Adoption and Children Act made in 2002 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/38/contents This may help - hope it does.

Best wishes,

Charlotte