Advertisement

Prioritising the needs of children when it comes to adoption

<span>Photograph: Alamy</span>
Photograph: Alamy

Recent letters from Prof Brid Featherstone and Prof Anna Gupta (20 January) and Janice McKinley (22 January) point out the issues of pain, loss and identity faced by many adopted children and adults at different times throughout their lives. As an adoption social worker of some 40 years’ experience, I understand and accept the validity of the points raised. In the 1950s, when McKinley was adopted, adoption was seen as a solution to the needs of infertile couples, and the needs of the child were not understood.

Since then, huge strides have been made in understanding the needs of the children, and legislation puts their welfare first (Children Act 1989). This can never remove the distress caused to McKinley and other children of that generation, but we have learned about the importance of understanding and prioritising the child’s needs since then.

Adoption will never be the placement plan of choice for children who can return to the care of their parents or relatives. This is made clear by the legislation and reflected in professional practice. Adoption only becomes an option because of complex problems in the child’s network and the consequent risk to them, including that of never achieving a secure and loving permanent home.

For those children who are not able to grow up safely in their birth family, there will inevitably be issues of loss and identity to confront at various life stages, whether or not they are adopted. Social workers are now aware of this and work to provide information and appropriate levels of contact for adopted children. Despite the challenges, research demonstrates remarkably good outcomes for many adopted children, who benefit from the stability and commitment of family care.

One approach to the dilemma of achieving early permanence for the child while supporting the birth family during court proceedings to decide whether the child should return home or be adopted is the temporary placement known as fostering for adoption. This is where an adopter accepts the placement of a child on a temporary basis as a foster child, with full recognition that the long-term plan will depend on the court’s decision as to whether the child achieves permanence via a return to their family, or adoption. A proportion of these children do return to their birth family at the end of proceedings. However, those children who need adoption will already be fostered in a family who can offer permanence via adoption, and will not have to suffer further delays in identifying adopters, nor the distress of another placement move. Fostering for adoption represents a win-win placement for the child.
Jeanne Kaniuk
Associate director, Coram Early Permanence Centre

• The sad letters from Alan Robinson and Janice McKinley (22 January) once again remind me how lucky I was. I, too, was adopted in the 1950s because my birth mother had to give me up shortly after birth due to family pressure. The wonderful couple who adopted me could not have been more loving, supportive and nurturing. I have always thought that this was akin to winning the lottery. Of course, adoption should not be a roll of the dice.

I just hope that if the government is indeed encouraging adoption, the necessary funding and resources to ensure this is done well and sympathetically – particularly for children who have been in care – have to be in place. Speaking recently to a social worker specialising in this field, this is far from the case.
Mark Burgess
London

• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com

• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters

• Do you have a photo you’d like to share with Guardian readers? Click here to upload it and we’ll publish the best submissions in the letters spread of our print edition