Adopted in the UK

The life of a UK adoptee

Archive for the ‘Fight the good fight’ Category

Contact Responding – Post #1

leave a comment »

Contrary to personal expectation, I did manage to get my email off in time to send both of my responses in to the DfE’s Consultation Review on contact arrangements for children in care. Given that I’m not sure what the word count is for WordPress posts yet (and cba to gliu), I’m expecting to have to split my two responses across three posts: Post one, this one, will be my response to the parental contact response form, excluding my critique of the Family Futures (fucked-up) Top 20 Wishlist; post two will be said critique; post three will be my sibling contact response.

Admittedly, these responses do prove that my head is not writing anywhere near well enough to go back to uni., which added on to a couple of other things, has kinda made my decision about uni. for me, for now.


1. We want to ensure that all professionals involved in making contact arrangements give careful and critical consideration to the length and frequency of contact, particularly for infants. Should we strengthen regulations and guidance so that contact arrangements are purposeful and reflect the needs of the child?
Yes No
Please comment further, including any suggestions for alternative proposals:

Yes, regulations and guidance need strengthening to ensure that all professionals involved in making contact arrangements give careful and critical consideration to the length and frequency of contact. However, the Government first needs to ensure that both it and all professionals involved in making contact arrangements are educated in the reality of being adopted – a reality contradictory to established conventional wisdom or common sense purported as being “for the best” by the large majority of those involved in the industry of the procurement and distribution of children.

Martin Narey’s interview transcript[ ] aptly demonstrates the tremendous disparity between the reality of being adopted, and the parody the purveyors of children expound.

First is the compounding of Mackaskill’s[ ] statistics (pg. 71), resulting in Narey fallaciously exhorting contact as being proven to be more often harmful than not. Further, Mackaskill’s research is necessarily invalidated as an explicit authority on the cessation of contact as all the subjects experienced face-to-face contact (pg. 7) – contrary to the experience of those confined within the closed adoption system. Narey’s approbation of Mackaskill’s study evinces his lack of comprehension of – or regard for – the devastating impact that the loss of genealogical reflection has upon a developing personality.

Another example is Narey’s comment of reducing “the amount of infant contact we have to more tolerable levels“, suggesting this “would be entirely in the interests of that baby“. Unfortunately, all this demonstrates yet again is Narey’s lack of knowledge of – or disregard for – long-established research demonstrating the massive importance of mothers to their young babies, especially within the weeks immediately after birth. That Narey follows this up by decrying cost as an implication, then adds “it would save local authorities a lot of money as well” only further serves to exemplify his true motives.

The radical re-assessment of the current ideological perspectives on adoption is further demonstrated as necessary by Narey’s reference to “the outstanding ‘Family Futures’ adoption agency, one of the most impressive organisations I’ve been to”. This, with his admission of surprise that a child distribution agency would want to do anything to make their business easier to sell, highlights either Narey’s naivety around the devastating, life-long impact that adoption has upon people, or his desire to further the child procurement and distribution industry. Of far greater indictment however, is nod to the “Family Futures’ Top 20 ‘Wishlist’ for Adoption in the 21st Century” – a document detailing almost everything adult adoptees are currently fighting against.

{See THIS POST for the Family fucked-up Futures critique}

2. We want to ensure that arrangements are appropriate to their age and stage of the child and specifically infants, ensuring they are not, for example, subject to long journeys. Each case will need to be decided on an individual basis, however we should like to propose that a starting point might be that children under two are rarely exposed to contact more than two or three times a week and for sessions of no more than two hours.
Should we strengthen statutory guidance to ensure more consideration is given to the purpose of contact for infants?
Yes No
Please comment further, including any suggestions for alternative proposals:

This response has previously established Martin Narey’s aversion to the financial costs entailed in ensuring that children retain contact with their own families, thus this question is nonsensically phrased. Of course each case should be decided on an individual basis, which is why stipulating restrictions such as no more than six hours exposure of children younger than two to their own parents is exceedingly dangerous. Not only does it prevent the decision being made according to individual needs and experiences, but it also negates the research available showing how important physical contact with ones’ own parents is.

That local authorities currently “spend a fortune employing agency social workers to supervise contact and shuttle children across town” is not as a sign the service should be removed, but that it should be made more efficient. Again though, it is only through a radical reassessment of the true impacts of adoption and needs of the adoptee that such a change can be truly useful. Adopters should be compelled to ensure that contact takes place in safe, healthy ways such as by playing on parks and such like, rather than in contact centres and other such child unfriendly places.

3. To ensure the role of Independent Reviewing Officer in scrutinising contact arrangements, as part of the care planning process for the child, is sufficiently emphasised,
Should we look again at guidance for Independent Reviewing Officers?
Yes No
Please comment further, including any suggestions for alternative proposals:

Yes. It is always good to look and see if improvements can be made in any sphere.

4. We think that the duties on local authorities to allow children in care reasonable contact with their birth parents and to promote contact for looked after children, may encourage a focus on the existence and frequency of contact arrangements, rather than on whether they safeguard and promote the best interests of the child. Removing these duties would remove the perceived presumption of contact in all cases and help local authorities to take a case-by-case decision about the best contact arrangements for the individual child.
Should we remove the duties on local authorities in primary legislation to allow children in care reasonable contact with their birth parents and to promote contact for looked after children?
Yes No
Please comment further:

No, duties placed on local authorities in primary legislation to allow children in care reasonable contact with their biological parents and to promote contact for looked after children should not be removed. Instead, as explained in answer to question 2, such contact should be strengthened in order to reflect the fact that it is essential for the wellbeing and healthy identity formation of a child to remain in contact as much as possible with their parents where it is physically safe to do so.

5. Alternatively, we could look to ensure that arrangements are made in the child’s best interests, taking account of views and wishes of all concerned, and aligned with the longer term plans for the child.
Should we replace the duties on local authorities in primary legislation to allow children in care reasonable contact with their birth parents and to promote contact for looked after children, with a new requirement that local authorities consider contact arrangements that have a clear purpose documented in the child’s care plan?
Yes No
Please comment further:

Yes, this should be done anyway.


6. We want to ensure that contact arrangements change as a child’s circumstances change and that they are consistent with plans for the child’s future. There are three key points at which contact arrangements need to be considered and reassessed:
(a) when the local authority makes a decision that a child should be placed for adoption, but no placement order has been made;
(b) at placement order; and
(c) when the child is placed with prospective adopters.
Should we look at existing guidance and regulations and consider where and how these can be strengthened to ensure a formal review and a clear decision making process about contact takes place at each of the three points?
Yes No
Please comment further:

Yes, this should be done anyway.

7. We want to minimise the risks of harm for the child as a result of badly planned and inappropriate contact arrangements.
Should we introduce a presumption of ‘no contact’ unless the local authority is satisfied that contact would be in the best interests of the child?
Yes No
Please comment further:

No. The presumption should ALWAYS be for prolonged, sustained, and regular contact unless the child is in immediate danger from such contact.

8. We want birth parents to gain the court’s permission to apply for contact, rather than being able to make a direct application to the court.
Should we introduce a ‘permission’ filter for birth parents, requiring them to get permission from the court to apply for contact with a child?
Yes No
Please comment further, including any suggestions for alternative proposals:

No. There are already enough hoops for parents to have to jump through in order to sustain the very necessary contact with their children – adding yet another layer will only (a) add to expenses, and (b) be detrimental to the child by potentially reducing the amount of contact they get with their own parents.

9. We want potential adopters views to be taken into account at an early point when making contact arrangements.
Should we introduce a provision to explicitly seek the views of the potential adopters at an early point in relation to contact at the point of the placement order?
Yes No
Please comment further:

No. No adopter should take on a child that they are not ultimately willing to make massive sacrifices for, and if one of those sacrifices is more time spent enabling the child they are raising to make the most from any and all contact that they can have with their own parents, then that is what they should be doing. If they are not willing to sustain a strong relationship between the child they are raising and that child’s parents, then they should not be adopting.


10. We want to give adoptive parents recourse where informal contact arrangements were causing difficulties.
Should we provide that the court can, on application for an adoption order, make an order for no contact?
Yes No
Please comment further, including any suggestions for an alternative proposals:

No. The only time an order for no contact should be considered is if the biological parent in question is an imminent and immediate threat to the life and physical health of the child.

If informal contact arrangements are causing difficulties, then those experiencing this should re-apply to the courts for a more formal contact regime to be crafted, reflecting sensible aspects such as geographical distances, or shift-working patterns.

11. In addition to introducing a “no contact” order, we could raise the bar for any birth parent to make an application for a contact order. Criteria for granting permission already exists therefore we will explore how this might be strengthened.
Should we amend legislation to create a new more demanding ‘permission filter’?
Yes No
Please comment further, including any suggestions for an alternative proposals:

No. Contact between children and their own parents should not be restricted unless there is clear and compelling evidence that the parent will be an imminent and immediate threat to the life and physical health of the child.

12. What additional support do social workers and family justice professionals need to ensure their own practice and recommendations are informed by evidence about the positive and negative effects of contact for children who are adopted?
Please comment further:

Social workers and family justice professionals need to demonstrate comprehension of the impacts of adoption upon the adoptee, as explained in the following referenced books, before they can accurately educate others.

Brodzinsky, D.M. and Schechter, M.D. (1990) The Psychology of Adoption. New York: Oxford Press.

Lifton, B.J. (1988) Lost and Found: The Adoption Experience. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc.

Lifton, B.J. (1994) Journey of the Adopted Self: A Quest for Wholeness. New York: Basic Books.

Verrier, N.N.(1993) Primal Wound: Understanding the Adopted Child. Baltimore; Gateway Press, Inc.

Verrier, N.N.(2003) The Adopted Child Grows Up: Coming Home to Self. Baltimore; Gateway Press, Inc.

As explained by Verrier (2003, pp. 162-3):
Sometimes, terrible things happen to little children. Perhaps more often than we realize. Things that aren’t always recognized as terrible, such as being put in an incubator to save a life or placed with foster parents to avoid abuse, feel terrible to little children. We know that leaving children with abusive parents is a bad thing, but we don’t often recognize that children also suffer when placed with other people, even if those people are good. I am quite sure that many CPS (Child Protective Services) case workers don’t recognize the harm in taking children away from their real parents. Yet in the life of the child it is a huge transgression. These actions, although perhaps necessary, create attitudes in children that are sometimes harmful to them. … Sometimes social workers have to make these decisions, but they need to understand the pain for the children when they do. … Children may be harmed by keeping them in their abusive homes and by placing them with foster parents. … I am referring to the harm that comes from being separated from everything familiar – from family, even a bad family.

13. In what ways should we strengthen the training about contact for prospective adopters as part of the new adopter assessment process?
Please comment further:

It should be compulsory for prospective adopters to read the following books, and demonstrate comprehension of the issues discussed within them:

Lifton, B.J. (1988) Lost and Found: The Adoption Experience. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc.

Lifton, B.J. (1994) Journey of the Adopted Self: A Quest for Wholeness. New York: Basic Books.

Verrier, N.N.(1993) Primal Wound: Understanding the Adopted Child. Baltimore; Gateway Press, Inc.

Verrier, N.N.(2003) The Adopted Child Grows Up: Coming Home to Self. Baltimore; Gateway Press, Inc.

As explained by Verrier (2003, pg. 117):
It is sometimes difficult to spot grief in children. After all, it isn’t as if the child sits in a puddle of tears his entire childhood. As one adoptee said, “Of course I played, laughed, sang. Do people think that if you’re not sitting in a corner with your head on your knees, you are not sad? I had happy times, but the sadness was always there, even when I was having fun.”

14. What additional post adoption support could be offered, to help adoptive parents support their child to understand how to make or stop contact with their birth family?
Please comment further:

Education needs to begin with taking notice of what adult adoptees are describing. Examples of place to turn to find such things out are:

15. How can unsolicited contact, either from a birth parent or from an adoptive child to their birth family, be better managed?
Please provide any examples of good practice, particularly managing the use of social media.
Please comment further:

If contact is not removed, then such an issue will no longer occur because it will be acknowledged that families need to remain in touch.

16. Please use this space for any other comments you would like to make on the review of contact arrangements for children.

It is imperative that the Government and professionals involved in child welfare ameliorate the devastation contemporary adoption inflicts upon the adoptee. Whilst the complete removal of the adoption system is preferable, until this becomes possible, there is no good reason that adoptees should not be able to apply to have THEIR OWN adoptions annulled, or otherwise divorced, in the same way other legal arrangements (e.g. marriage) can be invalidated or otherwise terminated.

Additionally, I would like to invite whomever reads my Parental Contact Response to read my Sibling Contact Response too, as this describes much that is relevant to the issues surrounding parental contact.

Continue reading Part #2.

Written by 7rin

Fri, 31 August, 2012 at 8:50 pm

Tell me something I don’t know

leave a comment »

{quoting Aidan Burley, MP letters}

Back in 2010, I wrote the Let the battle commence post, detailing my quest for adoptee specific psychological support. Well it took over a year, but in December 2011, I finally got myself along to visit Aidan Burley, MP‘s The Help Zone, in order to try to get my local MP on the case.


When I went in, I told them I was going to them for help because I had already exhausted every other avenue available. I told them that no-one else can help me because Staffordshire are already fulfilling their statutory obligation, and so I needed help in extending the help available.

I have – finally – had a letter back from Mr Burley’s office (dated 30 Jul), passing on a letter sent to them nineteen days ago by Staffordshire County Council’s Nick Bell (Chief Executive). Nick’s letter says:


Thank you for your letter regarding your constituent Ms Lloyd. I am advised that the Organisation Ms Lloyd refers to [WMPAS – see: LtBC] has in fact closed down and services merged with After Adoption, a voluntary Organisation.

Staffordshire County Council’s Adoption Services does not contract with this organisation but is fully compliant with the statutory requirements as laid out in legislation including the provision of a post adoption support service and at its last inspection was rated as Good by Ofsted.

A range of services are available in Staffordshire that Ms Lloyd may access regarding her adoption by contacting the Post Adoption Support Team on 01889 256400. I understand that Ms Lloyd has previously been supplied with these details.


Now this is nothing surprising, nothing new, nothing we didn’t already know. The services that SCC have been able to offer me – an adult adoptee – are extremely limited. I’ve used all of the help that SCC can give me, and was told by their own SWer that I know more about all I was experiencing than they did, and thus there was no more help they could offer me.

I mentioned this, along with describing how not even the Practice Manager at my local doctors’ surgery had been able to help. Thus, I am entirely bemused at the accompanying letter from Aidan’s gnome, Mark Holland, which reads:


Firstly, please let me apologise for the length of time it has taken for us to obtain for you a response from the County Council, in respect of its adoption services. I am sorry for the long delay, since Aidan’s letter to you in March.

Please find enclosed a copy of a letter Aidan received last week, dated 12 July, from the Chief Executive of the County Council. I note that the Council asserts that its adoption service, including post-adoption support, meets all statutory requirements made of it, and was rated as ‘Good’ at its last Ofsted inspection.


I am bemused because all that the letter from Nick does is confirm everything I told Aidan’s monkey when I first went in last year is true, yet Mark seems to have written his letter from a “case closed/nothing more we can do” perspective.

I will be writing back to Aidan’s pen to ask if this really is a case of “game over”, or whether they’ll actually try to help now they’ve (finally) proven that everything I told them the first time I walked through the door is true. Before I worry about me though, I still need to help minimise this crap for others by responding to the DfE‘s consultation review surrounding “contact arrangements for children in care and adopted children and on the placement of sibling groups for adoption“, since Narey’s proposals are inherently evil and need to be stopped. Not that I expect to get listened to, being someone who’s lived this my entire life.

Finally, I’d like to wish the American bastards a wonderful time at the ARC demo. You lot rawk!

ETA: I’ve just been to dig out SCC’s Adoption Support Service Flyer in order to double-check what services they’re saying are available to me (and n case they’ve updated it to actually be helpful).


For Adopted Adults
We can provide an opportunity to talk to someone about how adoption has affected you and:
* Information and advice about relevant adoption issues
* A full counselling service for those people over 18 years who wish to access their birth records
* A limited intermediary service for those wishing to make contact with members of their birth family
* Preparation and support for any reunion
* Information about other organisations and services that can offer help


1. I gave the SWer I saw more information about being adopted than she could give me.
2. I’ve utilised the counselling service to access my birth records.
3. I didn’t need an intermediary as I contacted members of my own family myself.
4. I’m post-reunion, and still can’t get the help I need, which is why I went to AB in the first place.
5. I gave them more information about organisations that can help than they gave me.

Written by 7rin

Wed, 1 August, 2012 at 4:25 pm

Cavalier prick

with one comment

Had a reply off AB. Yup, he really is a prick.

Dear 7rin

Thank you for your letter, dated 16 March. I am grateful for your comments, though I do not share your view that adoption is a social ill.

I sympathise with you that your experience of being an adoptee was an unfortunate one. However, many thousands of children are adopted, and it is my belief that the law as it stands offers protection to those children, and support to their adoptive families. Adoption is in my view, very much a sign of a caring, civilised society.

I would therefore not wish to enter into a dialogue with you on the general merits of adoption per se.

I still look forward to receiving a reply from the County Council, and I will forward that reply to you, as soon as I receive it.

Yours sincerely

Whilst I can understand his reluctance to listen to someone WHO’S LIVED ADOPTION FOR FOUR DECADES, since, y’know, I might not have a clue what I’m talking about enter into a dialogue on the “general merits of adoption per se“, I do feel that my first reply back to him raised some points that were very specific, and which I will endeavour to pursue as relevant issues with Mr Burley. Suffice to say, I’m not convinced he’ll be at all receptive, given that he appears to’ve completely ignored everything I said in my first letter, but we can but try.

Given all the hoo-har going on over the state of the SS atm, and all the bullshit about adoption being a better option, you’d think someone’d actually wanna hear what those of us who’ve lived it for decades are saying. I don’t hold out much hope though.

I’ll be off over there => constructing my response to Mr Burley’s latest blow-off, should you need me. :}

Written by 7rin

Sun, 25 March, 2012 at 12:00 am

Posted in Fight the good fight

Tagged with ,

Aidan Burley, MP letters

with one comment

Back in 2010, I wrote the Let the battle commence post, detailing my quest for adoptee specific psychological support. Well it took over a year, but in December 2011, I finally got myself along to visit Aidan Burley, MP‘s The Help Zone, in order to try to get my local MP on the case.

The following is the reply that I hand delivered to The Help Zone this morning for them to pass on to Aidan, and is answering a letter he sent me.

… … … …

Dear Mr Burley

Thank you for your letter, dated 10 February 2012, in response to my enquiries at The Help Zone, Cannock.

I also offer my thanks to you for writing to the Chief Executive at Staffordshire County Council, to ask him what support Staffordshire County Council may be able to provide. However, I was somewhat perturbed to find that you consider a complete lack of appropriate support for adults who were adopted as children to be able to be passed off simply as me feeling there is “not enough”. Yes, I admit that I do consider the complete lack of appropriate support to be “not enough”.

AB: Current provision focuses on supporting families and children, because if any issues can be addressed early on, this will undoubtedly be beneficial for those children as they become adults.
In which case, perhaps you should be listening to the voices of those who have actually experienced what it is you are doing to these children – if you are as keen to prevent trauma in them as you suggest. Or is it just that you want to avoid the childhood traumas, whilst turning your backs on the traumas experienced by adults as a direct result of what you are doing to the children, since you are only interested in what the children show at that time?

Please understand that my irate tone stems from the fact that you reference children only. While yes, we were once adopted children, we are now adopted adults. And many of us were adopted when the current provisions for children were not in place. Adult adoptees need the support now that was unavailable when we were children. This seems to the point you are missing; the importance of providing counselling to those of us who did not benefit from the “current provisions to support families & children”. We come from the dark ages when we were not encouraged by anyone to talk about our feelings on adoption which is, I believe at least part of the reason that adoption is promoted to such a great extent. If we had been given a voice back then instead of having to get to a certain age before gaining perspective, confidence to speak out about how we feel, maybe people would have started listening a long time ago. Maybe.

AB: I appreciate your wider concerns regarding the approach of this Government to adoption. Given your own experiences, it is only natural that you would be cautious.
I would be intrigued to find out what you believe my experiences to be, given that you think they would make me naturally cautious of this Government’s approach to adoption, if you would be willing to share such fantasising with me? Unfortunately, the truth is far more mundane, as I have experienced nothing more than an average adoption story.

Or is it that you realise that someone who has been legally severed from their own history may actually see through the bullshit of Martin Narey suggesting that abandonment to adoption actually be encouraged amongst pregnant women? Maybe you recognise that as an adoptee, I would not agree to an adoptee so acquiescent to adoptive parents that he puts their needs above those of the adoptee (Martin Gove) purporting to speak for me?

AB: However I would like to reassure you that the Government places the utmost importance on the wellbeing of children…
Only to discard them as adults, it seems.

AB: … it is for this reason that a common-sense approach must be taken towards the adoption and foster care system.
I vehemently disagree that the disorganised, non-systematic “common sense” approach (often subscribing to inarticulate and ineffable knowledge) must be taken towards the adoption and foster care systems (they should be separate systems, not interchangeable). Rather, I propose a more scientific approach should be taken that examines all of the detail available – detail that by necessity includes the narrative of adults who were themselves adopted whilst children. It is only by following the more rigorous models of scientific thinking that the wellbeing of the children who are currently experiencing the system, as well as the wellbeing of the adults they will become, can be maximised. This would further reduce dependency by adults, as contemporary adoptees would then be far less liable to echo the path taken by those like myself who are still suffering.

AB: The Government is increasing transparency of information available to local authorities, to help identify which areas are struggling with children in care, allowing us to challenge their performance, while helping them to learn from councils that are performing better. Under these new rules, tough action is to be taken on local authorities that are failing in their basic responsibilities to deal with adoption cases swiftly and efficiently.
Please explain to me why the Government believes that speeding up the severance of a child from its own history should be commended, whilst preventing such a devastating loss is seen as something to be punished?

Further, I would appreciate an explanation of why under these new rules, adoptees still are unable to have their own adoption over-turned or annulled or abolished or rescinded or obliterated or quashed or destroyed in the same way that their adoption destroyed their original history. See, the problem is that no matter what else happens to us throughout our lives, we remain adopted. Despite the fact that it is now possible to have a new birth certificate issued in a different gender, and despite the fact that it is possible to marry and then divorce, the fact remains that once an adoptee, always an adoptee – which means that we can no longer use our own original birth certificates.

AB: Government policies will increase the amount of money prescribed to each child in the system fourfold over the next three years, ensuring there is much more support available in the future.
Is this support also available to parents who are supporting and caring for their own biological children? If not, is this not simply the Government promoting a false economy of welfare by paying other people more to raise children that could be sustained within their own households, were they to be given the same support?

AB: I support measures to address the current over-complicated system, which puts many families off from adopting, and deprives children of the chance to be part of a loving and stable family.
Unfortunately, you are conflating issues. It is not essential – nor even important – to legally severe a child from its heritage in order for that child to be raised in love, and with care and concern. That adoption is deemed the only choice to be encouraged – even above non-destructive methods such as “legal guardianship” or “parental responsibility” (perhaps the laws governing PR could be widened to provide such permanence, for example) indicates grossly this Government’s intent on destroying families.

Adoption is a cruel and unnecessary legalised lie that enforces gross socialisations on the developing adoptee. Legally annihilating our history is nothing more than punishment of the child for the sins of the parent.

AB: Please do not hesitate to let me know if there is anything further I can do to support you, and I will let you know of any response I receive from the County Council as soon as possible.
Again, thank you for the latter. For the former, I would appreciate it were you to be willing to enter into a dialogue in order that I may help you better understand the dilemmas faced by adoptees – after all, what is the point in ‘saving us’, if the cure is more deadly than the disease.

Yours sincerely

Written by 7rin

Fri, 16 March, 2012 at 9:00 pm

Laurie A. Couture is dangerous, and needs to be stopped, now!

leave a comment »

Originally posted by me over at

Posting here because I believe she’s =that= dangerous!

Laurie A Couture Wait, why does your profile pic say, “Adoption Sucks”? My son was adopted!

Bev Lloyd Because I was adopted, and so speak from experience.

Laurie A Couture Bev, my son’s life was saved because of adoption- I am horrified that you would say that. My son is everything to me and his life in foster care and in the bio family nearly destroyed him. He would be horrified if he saw your photos. I would die for my son.

Bev Lloyd Bwahahahahaaaaaaaa!

*shakes head*

Bev Lloyd Please go educate yourself before you do him any more damage. Start and read outwards.

… … …
… … …

I’ve edited the length of this post to trim most’ve the conversation because I want to say please go over to the OP at and read the entire thread, because Laurie A. Couture came and talked with us, once she’d calmed down. I think she learned a lot. :}

Written by 7rin

Sun, 11 March, 2012 at 12:48 am

Adopted Headology

leave a comment »

Grand Blanc mother who made headlines for transracial adoption 10 years ago now struggles caring for adopted daughter with special needs

^That’s the article that finally spurred a thought into the front of my mind that I know has been sat swishing around in the background for the past week or so, because I’ve been able to know what it was without being able to word the connection. Strangely how simple it seems now that I’ve thought about it.

The thought was something I put to Time to Change.Org‘s Fakeblag page:

Whilst the story is from America, it does make me wonder (since I’m having to fight to try to get my own post-adoption counselling):
*Adoptees face significant mental trauma, all while having to deal with society’s expectation that we “should be grateful” for the occurrence of our adoptions.
**Where does Time to Change stand on helping adoptees to fight to get relevant post-adoption counselling?

Since post-adoption trauma is extremely prevalent, as well as requiring specialist knowledge from the psych’ in dealing with adoptees so as not to not do more damage, I’m thinking that some support from the mental health advocates could help at least some of us.

Written by 7rin

Tue, 24 August, 2010 at 12:49 am

Let the battle commence

leave a comment »

I have, since entering reunion in September 2009, been attempting to get some suitable post-adoption counselling to try to help me cope with all the traumas thrown up by entering reunion.

My first point of call was my local General Practitioner, who forwarded me to the local Community Psychiatric Nurse in order to assess my needs. Luckily for me, I understand much of what I do need, and so was able to be relatively precise in detailing the support I was looking for. The C.P.N. was – as is usual, in my experience – fantastic, and passed me on to a group called Chase Wellbeing.

C.W. is a group created in order to best direct people to the appropriate counselling necessary, however, as was evidenced by my meeting with the counsellor they deemed appropriate for my needs, they have absolutely no clue about how to handle post-adoption support – to the point where I told the counsellor I saw that she should NEVER attempt to counsel post-adoption adoptees needing help, as it’s entirely likely her help would do the opposite, and push them over the edge. As I told her, she appeared to be quoting verbatim the book 101 things not to say to an adoptee. By mutual agreement, it was concluded that C.W. would not be able to help me, and that I should go back to my G.P. in order to find some help that would actually help, as opposed to hinder.

After a couple of months break, I finally got around to going back to my local G.P. the other week. Yet again, I walked in knowing exactly what it was I was looking for, and this time, said G.P. agreed to write to on my behalf.

The wonderful J at Adoption Support telephoned me on Friday – the same day she got the letter from my G.P. – to tell me that she’d had the letter, and had spoke to my local G.P.’s Practice Manager, who was going to be calling her back today to let her know whether or not they (the G.P.’s practice) would be willing to fund the counselling that I know damn well that I need.

J called me back today to say that my local G.P.’s P.M. has decided to refuse to fund the counselling that I need, and so now I’m trying to plot what I need to do next.

The first couple on the list are the obvious:

J has agreed to send me a letter explaining that the funding isn’t going to be made available, so that I’ve got her contact details in order to include them with everything I may have to do in the future in order to obtain the funding for the post-adoption support that I need.

I need to write to my local G.P.’s Practice Manager in order to try to convince them that they really should support me with funding for the post-adoption counselling that I so desperately need. Unfortunately, I can’t see this gaining me much in the way of success, which means I then need to move on to …

Writing to Staffordshire Health Authority, in much the same vein as the letter to the G.P.’s P.M., in order to convince them to fund my application for counselling. Again, I can’t see this working magnificently – especially knowing the startling record Staffordshire have against people in their care.

I’d love to’ve linked you to the Staffordshire Social Services blog @ WordPress in order to demonstrate Staff’s appalling record, unfortunately, the blog’s been locked down now, and so I can’t – but if you’re the owner of said blog, PLEASE get in touch because I suspect you may be able to help me in the future, if things pan out the way I expect them to.

Next option, if writing to S.H.A. fails, is to get in touch with my local M.P. and/or Councillor (I’m not certain on the differences between the two, so if anyone can help clarify if they’re one-in-the-same, or two totally different roles, that’d be appreciated) and see if they can help me, however, I suspect that many of them won’t have a clue about the intricacies necessary in dealing with post-adoption support, and so I suspect I’ll be on my own from this point on, which is why I’m making this list so that I’ve actually got a clue of where I can go and what I can do whilst it’s still fresh in my mind.

From here then, it’s going to be a case of rallying as much support as I can possibly manage, and I’m almost hoping that it does get as far as the stage where I need to take it beyond all realms of decency in my fight to get the appropriate counselling I need, because if I can and do, then I can help spread the word that adoption is NOT all about living in the rainbow-farting unicorn fog, and that adoption DOES hurt the people it is supposed to be there to help – the adoptees … and the louder and more vocal I can spread that word, the more likely I am to be able to help drive the changes needed within the system to help make it better for the adoptees of the future.

Written by 7rin

Mon, 9 August, 2010 at 1:47 pm

%d bloggers like this: