Adopted in the UK

The life of a UK adoptee

Archive for the ‘Questions’ Category

Surrogates & donor dads

with one comment

One of the many options in creating a child these days is that of surrogacy and donor sperm. This option – like adoption – is lauded as a valid and valuable way to “create a family”. Also similar to adoption, the kids that are created in this way are frequently described as gifts – thus negating their status as human beings, and instead consigning their existence to nothing more than a commodity to be handed over to their purchaser/s.

In accordance with adoptees, there are many donor conceived off-spring blogs springing up that echo the losses adoptees face, however, this post is less about those more usually expressed losses, and more to do with something that has been niggling me of late.

One of the posts over at the 7rin-on-adoption repository links to research that confirms the existence of cell migration from the embryo to the gestating carrier. While I don’t have links to research confirming that this happens in the other direction, I strongly suspect (based on my limited knowledge and massive assumptions) that this must happen – otherwise, where does the growing embryo attain its sustenance? Thus, I am concerned that articles exist suggesting that …

Gestational surrogacy is when a woman carries a baby to term for a couple. The gestational surrogate or carrier doesn’t donate her own egg, so she’s not biologically related to the child she carries. Rather, the egg and sperm come from the couple or from a donor egg and/or sperm.

… and that people can be believing this is a truthful synopsis of the situation.

Surely if the gestational carrier and the developing embryo share a symbiotic relationship, then the child that is later born – whether it originated from an egg produced by its carrier or otherwise – does have some genetic relationship with its carrier that is being readily dismissed as unworthy of mention and/or research?

I would appreciate any knowledgeable input on this subject as I admit, it is a subject I know very little about. However, I am concerned that these connections – as with the connections adoptees possess with their genealogical families – are being reduced and mitigated, perhaps in an effort to negate the importance of the nurturing role these carriers bear in order to further exploit women’s reproductive capabilities.

Written by 7rin

Sat, 2 February, 2013 at 4:16 pm

Posted in Questions

Tagged with , ,

Can UK Social Workers truly have “the best interests of the child” at the heart of their work

with 3 comments

On Saturday 9th June this year, I went to the Birmingham Child Stealing by the State conference. I (kind of) gave a short presentation voicing some of the issues faced by adoptees (didn’t get to use my .pptx[1] ‘n’ got cut short to let John Hemming, MP go on :p). Whilst there, I heard it suggested that Social Work is a dying profession. This argument could be said to have merit, especially after the University of Southampton ended its degree programme in the subject, with a statement announcing:

the quality of the research being produced by the university was not of a high enough level to sustain the courses. It said it had not been able to reach a position where it could ensure that “internationally excellent research can be found in this academic discipline”.

Errors in judgement after errors in judgement after errors in judgement impact both public and professional perceptions alike – leaving it little wonder why the title has earned itself the rephrasing to Social Wreckers.

Whilst contemplating my personal attitude towards the Social Work profession, a timely reminder as to the nature of “social work” was posted by The Declassified Adoptee. “Social Wreckers” reminds the reader that not all social work is about taking kids. I actually am aware of this, but when caught up in the furore against wrongs, it can get difficult to still see some of the rights. Other Social Workers go nowhere near kids, and instead deal with the elderly, ensuring they get checked on when there’s no-one else left. Yes, I admit it, not all Social Workers are bad, or evil. ;)

Yet in this climate of fear these are people facing budget cuts, or other job threats for varying reasons. How can those who are in the child snatching adoption industry possibly have “the best interests of the child” at the heart of their work when their very jobs depend so very much on hitting the targets so recently drawn up by the Government in order to eliminate targets?

I honestly don’t think it’s possible that it can be – especially since it’s been known for decades that adoption is not “for the best”. That’s why in Australia, they’ve got it down to the sorts of figures it should be running at (if it must run at all). Perhaps somewhat more astoundingly, the Australian Government has issued an apology to those separated by forced adoption – yet in this country, forced adoption is on the rise.

Why?

It doesn’t make sense to me.

Of course, somehow or another, a paradigm change has happened over in Aus., and adoption is now seen as the last option, not the first. This is as it should be, because let’s not forget that despite “child protection” supposedly being about protecting kids; that child only exists for 18 years at most. Adoption stays inflicted upon us for the rest of our lives though.

If the Government are going to keep aiming to annihilate more and more childrens’ heritages, then they need to give the adult that child grows into the option to nullify their adoption. “As if” it never was.

ETA on 16 Sep
Another course bites the dust: Closure of MSc in MH Social Work at Institute of Psychiatry.


Footnotes:
[1] {THIS} is the .pptx that never happened, and {THIS} is the script I was stumbling over. And {THIS} little piggy is the snippet of a cam. copy of The Avengers, with the bit where “everyone” laughs when Thor says “he’s adopted” about Loki.

Written by 7rin

Wed, 4 July, 2012 at 8:59 pm

What *is* a “successful adoption”?

with one comment

It gets said around – for example, in this {linky} article by (yes, I know, don’t mock, it was the easiest one to find :p) the Daily FMail, that there are such things as “successful adoptions”. (Bolding = my emphasis)

{quote}
And while some adopted children will go on to have behavioural problems because of their poor start in life, there are still many successful adoptions that take place.
{/quote}

So what constitutes a successful adoption then? Is it one where we don’t follow in the footsteps of our “dire backgrounds, where it’s highly likely Dad has been in prison and Mum was addicted to heaven knows what illegal substances and working as a prostitute.” ??

Are we even allowed to want to know our biological predecessors? Or does that make us a bad adoptee?

Does it make any difference if it is our adopters that are abusive, as has happened in so very many cases? Or are we still expected to follow the decree and only recognise our adoptive families (who we generally have absolutely nothing in common with at all, other than shared history) as our “real families”, since after all, they’re the ones who sat up with us sick, and other such normalities?

What makes an adoption “successful”?

I’d really really like to know.

Another point to raise, while we’re on the subject, is …

{quote}
But, unfortunately, the names of these blameless children make their less-than-middle-class backgrounds all too obvious. And most prospective parents don’t want to adopt children who are named after someone’s favourite celebrity or tipple.
{/quote}

… should someone who so obviously cares about such superficial things as the name we’re given by our parents be allowed to adopt in the first place? I mean, surely that exhibits pressures that are going to be applied to the prospective adoptee that should not be placed on a child who hasn’t already experienced such a great loss, let alone one who has to conform in the ways that an adoptee does?

Written by 7rin

Tue, 8 May, 2012 at 7:32 pm

%d bloggers like this: