*waves hands around ineffectually*
It is absolutely mind-boggling that despite the masses of data demonstrating that adoptees fare far better when they’re not completely cut off from THEIR OWN families, that the UK Government is going against this.
One can only imagine that this is – as in America – spurred on by those adopters who would far rather own the kid/s they’re raising, and pretend that we truly are “as if born unto”, negating entirely that we actually do spring forth from SOMEONE ELSE’S loins, and attempting to mold their captive… sorry, adoptee into their own image.
Why? We’ve already demonstrated that this is massively harmful to the adoptee, and does nothing but add to the trauma that adoptees already face by being severed from THEIR OWN families.
At a time when the internet seems to be filled with the news of increased contact for birth parents, this latest revelation not only sits uncomfortably with the current status quo (that of widening a child’s connection to their genetic legacy) but also seems, for now, highly punitive and reminiscent of the strange double standards we see too often in the family justice system.
What are we talking about? Well, the government hopes to unveil new reforms which will give the courts the power to prevent biological parents from contacting their children, for example through internet sites like Facebook and other social media websites.
Even more startlingly, the new reforms will include the presumption that there should be no ongoing contact once the child has been adopted and will only be overturned in ‘exceptional circumstances’, which would require the birth parents to make a ‘convincing case’ that their…
View original post 221 more words
"Adoption Loss is the only trauma in the world where the victims are expected by the whole of society to be grateful" - The Reverend Keith C. Griffith, MBE
Very strange decision, how have they justfied it or didn’t they?
eagoodlife
Sat, 9 February, 2013 at 10:21 pm
I haven’t yet got around to reading the whole lot (haven’t even looked at the Bill). However, Call for views: adoption contact arrangements and sibling placements – Feedback is what I’d imagine covers their justification, which is cobbled together from the questions answered in the Consultation Review.
I find it deeply ironic though, that this comes on the heels of a recent court ruling that sperm donors may seek contact orders with their children (but only if they know the person who they donated to, because obviously kids of anonymous conception shouldn’t have the right to have their dad’s see them <sigh>).
Then again, this is from the government whose Adoption Advisor says …
… in response to the research mentioned in Forgotten Adoptee’s Observer Article: How a generation of orphans fared when they were matched to mixed-race couples article that is based on BAAF’s recently released British Chinese Adoption Study, of which Lucy was one of the participants. Now admittedly, I haven’t read the research yet (because I refuse point blank to give my money to the BAAF baby-buyers), but I strongly suspect that while Narey’s words may outwardly look accurate, I suspect he’s missed the boat by a wide margin.
Sorry if this response is a bit jumbled, I haven’t had a cuppa yet.
7rin
Mon, 11 February, 2013 at 12:30 pm
Reblogged this on legallyblondepaddy.
legallyblondepaddy
Mon, 21 October, 2013 at 11:18 pm