We are hearing a lot this week about the virtues of the free press, but some journalists never seem to tire of advocating social engineering and labelling children as either demons or angels (rather than individual human beings). This blog post is about four recent news stories on adoption.
First, Carol Sarler wrote a sensational piece in the Daily Mail headlined:
‘They open their homes to adopt – then find they’ve taken on youngsters who wreck their family. Why do we continue to BETRAY loving parents?
A teen mum in the UK nowadays tends either to opt for abortion, or keeps child
Adopted children have been taken from birth parents not fit to care for them
Result is a scandal, blighting the lives of thousands of well-meaning families.’
There were responses from a range of professionals and adopters to the way this denigrated children and their origins, as are well summarised and commented on here by Caoilfhionn Gallagher. But why was this even ‘news’? Two years ago, the University of Bristol published extensive research into adoption disruption and the incidence of child to parent violence. This is why the English government is investing heavily in the adoption support fund. The work of groups such as the Potato group and the Weekly Adoption Shout-out are well known, and the challenges faced by carers of traumatised children should not be glossed over. But no-one is helped by adoption being portrayed as an unremitting horror story.
As only about 5,000 children are adopted in a year, and adopters are informed about the child’s background, it seems unlikely that ‘thousands’ of adoptive families are ‘blighted’ by children’s behaviour. Recent research with new adoptive families into the factors that contribute to successful placements found that, despite all families having some support needs, most adoptive parents were very positive about their children.
Second, Clemmie Moody wrote in a story about novelist Jilly Cooper (who adopted two children in the 1970s) on 30 December 2016:
‘it is now almost impossible to adopt a ‘white, newborn baby’. Under reforms made to the 1989 Children Act, it can now take anywhere between six months and two-and-a-half years to adopt.’
and
‘While the process of adoption was much speedier, with minimal red tape, in the 1960s and 70s, today there are many stages, and reams of paperwork, prospective parents must complete. Local councils and other agency adoption panels are heavily involved in the notoriously complex process’.
Ms Moodie goes on to cite statistics from 2011 in support of her claim that children are ‘put into homes’ for six months to two and half years. Her figures are remarkably out of date. 2016 statistics do show that a child aged under 1 still takes an average of just under 2 years to be adopted, but 5% (230 children) were adopted under the age of 1 during that year. Of all adopted children, 83% were white. Furthermore, as at 31 March 2016, there were 270 children in ‘fostering for adoption’ placements. Most of these will have been placed as newborn babies. Far from ‘now almost impossible’.
Third, Libby Purves in The Times defended Carol Sarler ‘exposing’ the challenges faced by some adopters. This article makes some useful points about the lack of access to mental health services and the shortage of local authority resources. Purves argues that being outraged by Sarler’s tone isn’t good reason to just walk away from the problem – but it’s hard to discern what she is proposing instead by way of constructive debate.
It is even more difficult to understand the message of Carol Sarler’s article – this was well put in one of the BTL comments:
‘I struggled to see what your point was – poor social work, naïve adopters, lack of government backing, more funding?’
Babies abandoned at birth do end up “in care”, however, they are adopted a lot faster than those where the parents are trying to keep their children. It is important to distinguish between different categories of cases.
The big question, of course, is how much harm is doing to babies by taking them into care at an early age (and whether that harm is greater than any that may result from leaving them with the parents). What is clear from the stats is that a large proportion of children are taken into care at an age before that at which they could be caused to suffer from RAD which appears to be the substantial subject of the initial DM article and the subsequent one in The Times. (Libby Purves)
I give info about the stats here:
http://johnhemming.blogspot.co.uk/2016/09/reactive-attachment-disorder-and-care.html
The disruption study by Julie Selwyn and colleagues at Bristol (that I gave a link to in the blog post) identifies the age of the child and delay before being adopted as significant factors in whether the child will have behavioural problems that threaten to disrupt the placement. RAD (reactive attachment disorder) is only one diagnosis among a range that had been applied to the children in study who had challenging behaviour. I don’t think it is a widely used description. The Wales research (link also given in the blog post) is studying the factors that indicate success in the early stages of adoptive placement.
I suggest reading these studies might be more helpful than citing a short summary of the Rutter research with Romanian orphans from a student website.
The ‘big question’ that Mr Hemming asks is one about the threshold criteria for a care order, rather than one about adoption. The original Mail article was a strong condemnation of birth parents which, if anything. was arguing for more and earlier removal of children, before they suffer the effects of abuse and neglect that adopters will have to face. The Times article made similar comments about birth parents, although in more moderate language.