Archived Forums

Another interesting article.There is at least one factual inaccuracy: according to a number of websites, Bill Clinton was not adopted althoguh he did take his stepfather's surname.And there comes some of the confusion. "Adopted" seems too broad a term for such an article. Yes, Bill Clinton could have been adopted by his stepfather but would that have made a significant difference in his life given that he lived with him and his mother anyway? I would say not. A friend of ours WAS adopted by his stepfather in those circumstances, but I've never heard him refer to himself as adopted: it seems more to have just formalised a relationship.Adoption can cover a wide range of situations and I'm not convinced that, in this article, a "one size fits all" term is helpful.However, my biggest concern is this. When we talk about the damage that is done to a child, I personally feel that using the term "adopted" somehow implies that the damage was the result of the adoption, rather than that the adoption was the the result of the damage or of damaging circumstances. My children were not damaged because they were adopted: they were adopted because they were being damaged. I personally feel that the statement, "... adoption can cause crippling developmental disadvantages in the wrong circumstances..." is shockingly inaccurate and grossly offensive.I also have issues with the implied assertion that "successful = good". There was some discussion about a year ago, I think, sparked by someone who wrote a book (I'm being vague: I don't remember the author or the name of the book) that suggested that a high proportion of successful businessmen were "psychopaths". They got where they were because they had no compassion or empathy, were controlling and manipulative and were quite prepared to trample anyone else underfoot to get what they wanted. (Sound familiar, anyone?) For examples of the type, watch The Apprentice. And I've heard Alan Sugar commenting that he liked that about one of the candidates. So, successful? Yes? Pleasant and a benefit to society? Hmmm.In sport, the BBC did a number of profiles on athletes during the Olympics and they stated that many of them were really quite selfish - something that the athletes themselves admitted. Reaching their ambitions meant sacrifices not only by themselves, but they demanded it of their parents, families, coaches, etc.As for Marilyn Monroe, I'm not sure why she's being put up as "successful". I've never seen her lauded as even a good actress. let alone a great one, and her private life seems like something you'd get on Jeremy Kyle.So, my overall reading is that the article seems confused overall and is sometimes offensive or inaccurate.Corkwing

HmmmYes the article does talk about the advantages of adoption - in developmental terms - BUT yet again, the author almost seems to completely ignore (bar the reference to Butler Sloss's comments) that modern day adoption is far from the days of babies being relinquished.Unfortuntely, many many many more adoptees today have , in developmental terms, been traumatised beyond belief. Nature V Nurture is the game today - that nuture in adoptive families maybe be able to overcome nature (the abuse, neglect and witnessing DV) that damages a childs brain.I can give all the nurture in the world to my developmentally traumatised child - I hope that he will successfully change lanes - Of course I hope he will be successful in life - for me that will be that he is able to form adult relationships, to maybe have a job that he enjoys and to be able to function in a world that has done him no favours. Should he not be a drain on society in terms of future addiction/user of mental health services/ resident of HM prisons etc I shall be very happy to say that without a doubt he will be one of society's achievers.Jellies

Oh, and I would like to add that you have once again caused offense.As have AUK by ignoring what todays adopters are saying about this website/ message boards but you are very happy to publisize an article that is potentially inaccurate at best and offensive at worst.

What on earth is the On-line Community Team doing here - are you endorsing this??!!

Can't see that my children have anything in common with Marilyn Monroe, Richard Burton et al. Well, other than the fact that Richard Burton and my children share a nationality."If adoption can cause crippling developmental disadvantages in the wrong circumstances, could it also create significant developmental advantages in the right circumstances?"Well, adoption does not cause developmental disadvantages - that was done by their birth families, nothing to do with adoption but by neglect, abuse, etc both pre and post natally.Adoption is the good part.I fail to see how you can compare adoption today with the historical adoptions you refer to. You're doing what ignorant politicians do - and failing to see the reality of adoptions now. And AUK. - are you being paid to publicise this journalist? He does seem to be using these boards a lot to publicise his articles?

I am not happy with this article or AUK for giving this journalist so much publicity for incorrect facts.I would like AUK to remove this stuff please.

Maybe the author should submit his work for comment BEFORE it's published.Corkwing

There's one good thing at least - my son will be delighted to have something in common with superman. Just have to make sure he doesn't start wearing his pants over his trousers.

I am rarely given to making rude remarks, but this utter load of wotsits takes the biscuit.I agree with 'But adoptees are lane-changers'The rest, well......If I get some time later I may post more!I'm so insulted!

What a load of ............Why on earth is AUK endorsing this author?Perhaps he is a "paid up" member who shal be able to have his say on the new "private boards". So glad I won't get to read his posts.Oh and by the way Ben, there are two"R's" in nurture - try spell check next time.

Good grief, I am astonished that AUK seems not to have read this before giving it publicity. It is at best a piece of ill-informed 'fluff'.Has the author really not realised that the early trauma spoken of in adoption is not 'just' the trauma of being removed from birth family, but the trauma of being in a family which is unable or unwilling to meet the child's most basic needs??Have not researched all the celebs mentioned, but can see that several were not 'adopted' but raised by extended family. Hardly the same thing, is it?

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ben-acheson/

Enough said Don.

I agree with the comments above and I just wonder which of the listed adoptees were neglected or abused for the first few years of their lives???Completely agree too about the types of personalities the author is referring to as achievers......fame could be viewed as an achievement tonsome people but at what cost?....I certainly hope my two lovely girls don't end up like Marilyn Monroe!

But so what? Even if this was a list of true adoptees and we agreed they were / are successful, what does it prove? Absolutely nothing. Sounds more like he is desperate to present adoption as a positive because he actually believes deep down that it can't be. Protesting too much, certainly.

Many thanks for all your constructive comments. It is interesting to hear the thoughts of people involved in adoption. I am a little shocked at the extreme level of hatred directed at this article and at me. Please accept my sincerest apologies if I have caused any offence– that is absolutely not what I intended. The article is about adoption and the forum does have a ‘Discussion’ board, so I asked Adoption UK if I could post it: they kindly did so. They do say on their website that anything posted here does not necessarily represent their views, so I feel that it is unfair to spear them in this instance. Whilst I don’t feel that I should have to delve into my own private circumstances to defend myself, I feel that some of the comments posted on here are so disgustingly venomous that I must have really offended some people. Therefore, some explanation is required. Firstly, I am not a journalist. I have never worked as a journalist and have never had any sort of journalistic training. I do write articles because I enjoy writing and it is a good way to express myself. I am also an adoptee. I was born because my birth mother was a victim of a violent assault by an unknown man. I was in foster care for three months but was hastily taken of foster care because I was being abused. I was then adopted by a fantastic family and have had a near-perfect upbringing. I only found out my history a few years ago and in the last few months I have been delving deeper into my situation. I recently joined the adoption contact register and was given a silver bracelet from my birth mother which had ‘Love Mum’ and my birth-date inscribed on it. Coincidentally, tomorrow I will finally see my adoption file which contains a letter from my birth mother explaining why she could not keep me. Most of this has all happened since Christmas, after my girlfriend broke up with me. For me, she was ‘the one’ but because my issues were beginning to come out after bottling them up for 26 years, I was not ‘there’ in the relationship. Thus, our relationship ended, the bottle broke and everything came out. That is my story in a very small nutshell. For the last four months, I have been trying to make sense of what could be a very difficult situation. To do so, I have been researching and reading A LOT about adoptees. I am sure if anyone else has read anything, they will immediately see how my story links to a lot of the published material, i.e. problems in relationships/false-selfs/sabotage. As many studies say, adoptees can often struggle to express themselves, especially if the issues were never openly discussed in the home. I am no different, but I express myself through writing: hence the articles. The reason why I wrote this article is because I wanted to write something positive about adoption – from my point of view. I’ll reiterate, from MY point of view.Everything I read seems to be depressingly negative – often referring to the fact that adoptees seem predisposed to failure/drug abuse/mental health problems etc. I found that to be quite different from my scenario and it is tough to read all of these published books/articles which seem to tell you that you are ‘damaged goods’. I do have my issues, but they are not insurmountable and I am making my way quite well in this world already. I do know where my birth mother lives and where her family are from. Without going into any detail, I can just say that I was lucky not to grow up in those areas. In fact, you simply cannot compare the opportunities I had with those which may have been available in the place that I may have grown up. Thus, that was the basis of the article. The article is based on my opinions. Nobody is saying that it is right or wrong. It is based on my situation, my thoughts and my experiences. As for the Superman/Jesus references…I hope nobody took that too seriously. If anyone has a problem understanding the points that I am trying to make, please just read the final paragraph. I do not feel it is necessary to pass much comment on the speling miztake or on what was said about my profile on the Huffington Post. The former is a bit petty and the latter has absolutely nothing to do with adoption - I can only feel that it is a personal attack on me. Unfortunately, I can’t help but notice that some of the comments come from the same people who attacked my previous article. What I am most worried about is that the level of hatred and some of the comments are so appalling that it may prevent others from posting on these message boards – I hope I am not to blame for other being prevented from voicing their opinions. Many thanks again, I do appreciate all the feedback. I am not an expert on adoption and I would never profess to be – that is why I like to see what other people think as I absolutely keep an open mind and listen to others opinions. I won’t respond to any more posts in this ‘discussion’ as it is quite clear that measured debate is not possible, but if anyone would like to tell me their thoughts, or even if you would like to attack me, then I’d be happy if you sent a private message.

For me, I don't care about who is or was successful or who was adopted or not. I suspect the percentages reflect the general population anyway.What offended me was the implication that as an adopter I would simply take the negative view and not help my son to achieve.I spend a huge amount of time, as hopefully most parents would, working with my son to help him be the best he can be. I teach him to be an individual, to be proud of who he is.He has more to cope with than most.I wish you every success with your journey, it can't be easy, but please don't take it out on those of us that battle everyday to give our children the best we can.

HelloJust trying to understand how on earth Ben this mix of generational ideas got clumped into this articleThere's traditional 1960s style baby adoption via relinquishment Which many have struggled with and feel that they've got something to really prove, coming second is no option Several adopters go on to adopt/ foster hoping desperately like you that they will prove the best of the nurture side of itTrouble is modern adoption is a million miles away from their early startsWe are talking about children adopted out of the care system these daysKids hugely damaged by horrific losses, abuse and repeated trauma of the worst kinds on a tiny developing personThe success they make are to still be alive!Anything else is a bonusAfter this, I'm going to post the link to barnardos keys to resilienceThe barnardos charity looked into the children who had been looked after/ adoptedFor some, trauma can lead into recoveryThey are resilient in enough areas to show signs of recoverySome others, trauma leads to disorder. The research was into what key things are common in those resilient kidsI've got 2 acThey came from the same abusive severely neglectful home and like most bf's represented on here have had generations of neglect(There's a lot to say about generational neglect and that patterning actually)The offence you have unintentionally caused is because we as adopters give EVERYTHING (and some!) to improve outcomes for these the most harmed children in our society.The article makes it look like we are harming them by adoption and if they aren't doing amazingly it must be down to rubbish negative parenting. That's ever so hurtful- on a forum that supports families going through tough times with some very hurting childrenModern adoption in the uk is specialist parenting for a child Who hurts.I just think in genuine honesty Ben, you've missed the point on modern adoptionPerhaps attend the conference later this month and see if you learn a bit about the modern adoption scene?

http://www.barnardos.org.uk/what_works_in_building_resilience__-_summary_1_.pdf