This comment was originally posted in the replies section following the Guardian’s blog post, Daddy’s adoption stories (I’ve read stories with titles like that :p), but (typo aside), I like it so much, I’m adding it to my wall of fame – ish thing.
Now I have said before, I do not deny that there are mistakes made, that there are over zealous SWs who err on the side of caution, but after Victoria Climbie and Baby P, do you really blame them?
Getting it wrong and over-compensating by taking too many is just as destructive as getting it wronging by not taking enough – possibly even more so, since the risks are under-accounted for in making decisions. Adoptees have a higher suicide risk than non-adoptees, they’re also over-represented in both the prison population and the psych.therapy arena. Thus, increasing the number of adoptees by getting it wrong and over-compensating can lead to harsher long-term effects.
99 times out a 100, there for a bloody good reason and that when they can no longer go home, that they need loving responsible new families, not foster care, not group home, but permanent new mums, dads and homes.?
I don’t disagree that there are always going to be those kids who are going to need someone from outside their own family to do the raising and loving and nurturing that their own parents can not or will not do. However, adoption is nothing more than a legalised lie that pretends the child is “born to” the adopters. It’s a legal fallacy, and is unnecessary, since if someone is willing to do the raising and loving and nurturing and supporting, then they should be able to do it without “ownership documents” that simply reinforce the fallacy of being “born to” those parents. Good parents are Good Parents no matter what bits of paper they do or don’t have – they certainly don’t need to legally obliterate the child’s history (which is what adoption does) in order to be able to provide unconditional love for that child.
Get rid of adoption. Go to how it’s done in Aus. where they have next to no legal adoptions because the legal obliteration will then not happen. Lose the legalised lie, and everything else should be covered by adequate child protection laws. :)
Re: Specifics on cases – I don’t know what of the information that I do know is public, and what bits are ‘protected’ by gagging orders, thus all I can currently provide is the links I’ve already provided, which within their own pages have links to at least some ‘facts’.