Posts Tagged ‘Research’
Call for views: adoption contact arrangements and sibling placements
Summary of feedback and Government response
Kinda saddening that there were only “received 102 responses on
sibling placement and 125 on contact with birth parents”.
Also, there have been key changes to adoption, published today in Children and Families Bill.
I have no comment to make on these yet because I haven’t read them yet. No doubt that when I do read them, I’ll agree with a lot, but have my blood boiling while I’m reading them because of how weasley they tend to be written.
While they’re making all these changes though, the one thing I can’t understand is why they don’t bring http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/38120 in while they’re at it. At least then it gives those who’re made into #adoptees the chance to make THEIR OWN decisions as to whether they want to STAY adopted once they’re adults.
Somehow, sadly, I don’t think they’ll do either though, since it means then that they can’t be pimping adoption as wonderful and loved by all us spoken-for adoptees. After all, how can it be wonderful if so many of need therapy because of it?
In an attempt to bolster my own capabilities, as well as to help shed light on the plight of adoptees, I decided today to undertake a sociological inquest into adoption. The research will examine publicly available data, using content analysis to examine the perspectives of the messages delivered.
So how am I hoping that my work as an un-yet ‘qualified’ sociologist will help shed light on the plight of adoptees?
Simples (thank you Aleksandr).
I am hoping that my research will demonstrate several things – both the positivist language used when discussing adoption, and the fact that adult adoptees are one of the least catered-for (for want of a better short-phrase) minority groups.
It is my hope that this research, as well as getting my brain into gear ready for going back to university in Autumn, will help begin a flood of research that – rather than looking at the issues from a childhood perspective – recognise that an adult perspective upon the issue is just as valid, given that adults who were formerly adopted as children are more likely to have developed the necessary linguistic skills that will enable them to elucidate more clearly upon an issue than the child version of the same adoptee is unlikely to be capable of articulating.
Necessarily, the information being used, as well as all the tools being used (e.g. for data compilation) I either already own, can borrow (e.g. from friends or the university), or are freely available for download via some portion of the Internet or another. This should hinder neither the validity of the final research, nor the conclusions reached however – as it all comes down to the ways its mixed up, after watching the cookie crumble, who knows where things could wind up.
And with that rather weird turn of phrase, I take myself AFK, or, at least, AFWP posting.
In an effort to reinvigorate my brain, I am going to – yet again – attempt to blog.
As this particular post is winding up in my adoption blog, obviously the subject is to do with adoption – however, as of yet, this post is unformed, and thus may travel in any direction from here.
An obvious starting point could be the first -gate fiasco I’ve heard of this year – that of the Circle of Moms Adoption Blog Award controversy. Real Daughter encapsulated the drama, whilst poor Declassified Adoptee tries hard not to rage in hurt over it all. Other notable posts encountered today can be found by Joy’s Division, Life As Eri Knows It, and iAdoptee.
In other adoption-related stuff, I have spent some of the week pouring over UK adoption legislation in an effort to understand how I need to word what it is I am fighting for. Of course, to be able to do this, I also need it clear in my head what parts of which fight are included where. I started trying to do sort things out August 2010, which I know because the post is still sat in my drafts’ folder. The title was “separating the issues”, and the opening sentence asks:
When it comes to discussing adoption, just how many individual issues are there?
Following that is a link to a discussion on gay adoption – followed by a list: ‘pre-adoption’, ‘post-adoption’ and ‘birth certificate – to amend or not?’
The list described is significantly different to the latest lists I’ve been compiling. Now my lists bear titles such as ‘problems & proposals’, and begin with:
1. Bring in law let adoptees overthrow adoption
2. Change law that covers adoptee rights to seek help from suitably qualified
… and further includes lists like:
Points to pull out
1. Annul adoption / adopting back = adult adoption
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
2. Lack of support – gmt guide only insist up until 18, why
Staff’snot provide when others do
a) If abused = ok to be ‘troubled’ – if adopted = gratefulness required
lack of appropriate support for adults who were adopted as children
While yes, we were once adopted children, we are now adopted adults.
I think the most clarifying explanation comes from my response to Aidan Burley, M.P. however, where I explain that he is:
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.
Theses describe – pretty accurately – how I feel about adoption. I recognise that children need permanence, but severing the history of the person who is the one already losing everything else is nothing short of barbaric.
For those interested, my Adoption Mania blog has an entry quoting some of Jenny Keating’s works. The quotes remind the reader that legal annihilation of someone’s past did not begin until the 1920s in England, and were begun to protect the adopting parents from the evil biological families. All this separation does however, is stupefy the child, leaving it left to work out the world with nothing familiar about it. Daniel’s post, while seeming far from the history of adoption in England, does have some commonalities, and also links back well with the kinds of proposals I would like to see (such as greater care within the extended family for a child with parents that won’t/don’t/can’t parent, and a lack of legal annihilation).
And that, I think, is enough for you for now. I appreciate the attention of anyone who has managed to make it this far through the post, and congratulate you on your ability to withstand reading such waffley shit. ;)