No abstract

No abstract

Using questionnaire data about 168 young, recently adopted children and interview data about 36 children having face-to-face contact, Elsbeth Neil explores how agencies formulate and support post-adoption contact plans. It was found that while most children were planned to have some form of contact, adoption agencies differed in the extent to which this was promoted, especially face-to-face. Agencies seemed to play a leading role in determining whether or not face-to-face contact should occur, and what form it should take. However, for contact to be successful it was important that agencies did not just insist on contact, but that they helped adoptive parents to feel positive about it. There was evidence that some agencies that planned face-to-face contact remained ambivalent about its value, indicated by formal, low-frequency contact meetings that were controlled rather than supported. Such arrangements could convey negative messages about the importance of contact and the capacity of adopters and birth relatives to manage arrangements directly. A more successful model of agency involvement empowered adopters and birth relatives to find a plan that suited them, incorporated positive messages about contact and provided support where necessary.

It is widely accepted that the processing of identity issues can be problematic for some adopted children. Needing to know why placement for adoption was necessary is often central to adopted people’s identity concerns. Adoption practices have altered and children are now placed for adoption for different reasons and from different backgrounds than were children in the past. This study aims to present an up to date picture of the reasons why children are placed for adoption. Using information from questionnaires completed by social workers, the circumstances of a sample of 168 young (mean age at placement = 18 months), recently adopted children are examined. Children fall into three groups according to the reason for their adoption: relinquished infants (14%), those whose parents had requested adoption in complex circumstances (24%), and those children required to be adopted by social services and the courts (62%). Child and birthparent characteristics and openness arrangements are examined and are found to differ significantly between the three groups, indicating that children will have different types of information to appraise and differing capacities to make sense of their personal histories. Because of the multiplicity of difficulties in children’s backgrounds, it is concluded that resolving identity issues is likely to be challenging for many children, and professionals will need to take this into account when working with adopters and birth relatives.

Parental mental distress may pre-date or even precipitate a child's adoption, but adoption can also cause birth family members psychological distress. There is a lack of research that has measured the mental distress of birth relatives in contemporary adoptions, most of which are initiated by the child welfare system. The objective of this study was to measure the mental health of birth relatives in contemporary UK adoptions using a self-report measure, the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI). 164 birth relatives (89 birthmothers, 32 birthfathers and 43 extended family members), drawn from three separate samples, completed the measure. Data were collected between 2002 and 2008. In 89% of cases, the child had been adopted from the public care system. The length of time since adoption varied from 0 to 12 years (M = 3.8). The scores of birth relatives on the nine symptom dimensions and three global indices of the BSI are reported and compared with previously published results from a community sample and a psychiatric outpatient sample. The scores of birth relatives were considerably higher than the community comparison sample. Fifty-seven per cent of all birth relatives had scores on the global severity index within the clinical range. Separated into three groups (birth mothers, birth fathers and extended family members), these figures were 67%, 56% and 35% respectively. For all groups of birth relatives, scores on the 'paranoid ideation' subscale were particularly elevated, raising questions as to the meaning of this symptom dimension for this group of people. Social models for understanding mental distress are argued to be particularly relevant, and it is suggested that the distress of birth relatives is more usefully seen as 'unease' than 'disease' and that support services should draw on Recovery models of intervention. Practice suggestions for adult mental health service providers and adoption support services are discussed.

Sociological and anthropological studies of kinship have examined adoption as a test case for understanding the complex combinations of biological and social ties that constitute kinship. Adoption sets up an ‘adoption kinship network’ between birth family and adoptive family members. Contact after adoption poses challenges for adoptive families and birth relatives in negotiating changing kinship ties. This paper examines the experience of post‐adoption direct sibling contact from the perspectives of adoptive parents and birth relatives, including adult siblings. Interviews were carried out with 51 adoptive parents, four long‐term foster carers and with 39 birth relatives. The analysis revealed the complex multiple family networks that exist between adoptive families and the families of the adopted child's birth siblings. These networks connect some siblings, but sever connections with others. Where direct contact occurs, infrequent meetings mean that regular, repeated interactions normally considered to constitute ‘family practices’ are absent, in some cases creating barriers to feelings of kinship. Implications for adoption and contact support services are discussed.

No abstract

No abstract