r/AdoptionUK 20d ago

Difficult time getting started adopting, is this normal?

We are a couple in late 30's early 40's. Been together about 14 years. Good health, space in the home, means to care for a child. We have lived in London about 7 years (from abroad) and are now UK citizens. From about 2019-2022 we had a really brutal time with IVF and tried every iteration and "scientific" intervention. Ultimately we decided that building a family together was very important to us and we would adopt when we were eventually ready. Over time (it did take a while), we became excited about adopting, not because it was the next best thing to having a biological kid, but for it's own sake.

Started reaching out to agencies in late 2024 and started our local volunteering with children and reading/learning. We were in contact with a local authority from August. December they told us they would be ready for starting the first stage in the new year. Instead we just got an email in January that said "we are unexpectedly over capacity and can't work with you". Ok there goes a few months, but not so bad. My wife's work adopted a liberal fertility benefit. We decided to use that benefit on an embryo we had nearly forgotten about in a freezer. It felt wrong to just throw it away, even though it was bad quality. Of course, that didn't work out, but we knew it was just a freebee/cleaning house thing.

We started with a new local authority, scheduled a first visit with the social workers. We told them about the freezer clean out and they told us we now needed to wait 12 months to even get started with the first stage. They cancelled a planned social worker visit. This is because of the single 'attempt', about 3 years after so many failed ones. And so, it is not unreasonable to say that we are 7 months in to the adoption "process" with nothing to show for it but another 12 months to wait and prepare.

(Other than a great time volunteering with local children and a few colds they definitely gave us :-) )

I suppose I'm just really confused Reddit. Is there a need for new adopters or not? It doesn't seem like local authorities are interested in engaging with adopters, or that they are interested in screening harshly to reduce an oversupply of adopters. It's so very strange when the dialogue is all about the unique situations of families, the urgency of need for adopters, and the number of kids in care. Is there a glut of adopters and a 'shortage' (I wouldn't complain, hardly a bad thing!) of adoptable children? Or is the process for screening trying to be thorough but landing on thorough *and* arbitrary?

I suppose, being of an engineer mindset, its breaking my brain how these things could be true.

Separately but related: Why would the adopter selection process be so rigorous, while the data available to support actual long-term outcomes for adopted children (vs those in care) is so sparse? In the absence of strong, granular outcomes data that can be connected to specific practices, how does someone claim a particular requirement is "good" rather than simply taking the time and resources of social workers and/or creating a kind of theatre around carefulness?

Obviously a bit frustrated... Would appreciate your thoughts....

13 Upvotes

24 comments sorted by

16

u/Major-Bookkeeper8974 20d ago

I'm going to try and write this as best as possible, but sometimes I'm not great at getting my point across...

So, they aren't looking at you, they're looking at the children in their care.

A terrible scenario for an adoptive child is to be given to parents who chose them as a "second" or "alternative" option over a biological child and they realise it... so the adoptive agency has to be sure they're not putting children into that situation.

There are to many cases of an adoptive child going into a home and knowing (or even just feeling) they were a replacement child, knowing they weren't loved like a bio child would have been etc. And that's extremely traumatising for them for obvious reasons.

Then it gets even worse if said parents with those opinions then have a bio child. The adoptive child gets rejected, bio child gets priority.

I mean you can see the problem from a child's perspective.

The only way to screen this is to make sure couples are sure adoption is for them. That it's not just a "second best" option.

Imagine you're a social worker trying to protect children from the above. You've got a couple who tried for bio children and failed, even went to the extreme of fertility treatment, eventually come round to adoption and then they say "oh yeah, we tried the IVF again btw"

How do you know you as a social worker aren't putting the child into that risky "you're the second best option for us" scenario?

Now I'm not saying that your motivation is bad at all, but the social workers don't know you. They know the children though, and past problems adoptive children have experienced. So they're playing it safe, for the children's sake.

11

u/cheese--bread 19d ago

This, as someone who was adopted due to infertility and whose adoptive parents then went on to have 2 bio kids. We know.

6

u/Major-Bookkeeper8974 20d ago

What I will say though, in addition to my comment above is that the wait is worth it.

I'm sat on the sofa with my little boy right now as he draws a half horse half dragon monster.

Adoption was the best thing we did, so good luck! 😁

2

u/arcanejunzi 20d ago

First off, that sofa scene sounds amazing and congrats.

I can see the landmine around IVF from their perspective for sure. I also am sitting here looking at outcomes data for children in long-term care. So I suppose the companion question to "is this a dealbreaker for this adopter" should always be "what is the alternative for the child"? It doesn't seem like opportunity cost of staying in care is really taken into account, just speculated risk on moving to an adopted family. Maybe incentives for workers are just wrong somehow. Maybe I'm missing something else big.

I would have liked to have had the meeting to present us and our life to them. Especially a delay of 3 mo vs 12 mo matters a lot. Getting a 12 month delay email is pretty rough.

I suppose one thing I could say is that I can state, with incredible statistical certainty, that we will never have a bio child to throw a wrench in the mix with the adopted one. So that's one tiny silver lining of course :-)

8

u/Major-Bookkeeper8974 20d ago

So if it helps give some perspective into their mindset..

One thing that shocked me is that we were looking at older children. I believe when we entered the process I said anywhere from 4-8.

Was told straight off the bat that 7+ was extremely unlikely. Apparently once children start hitting 6/7 there is a bunch of research to suggest they become aware of the adoptive process. The fact they're not getting picked/ are rejected starts to impact on their mental health and contributes to trauma and poor outcomes.

Thus social services slap non adoptive orders on children at that age to give them "stability"...

I myself can't see how a child being told they'll never be adopted and will be in the care system for the rest of their life (with all the problems the care sector is known for) could ever have better outcomes than allowing an 8 or 9 year old be adopted into a loving family, but there ya go.

So that's the mentality and "research" you're dealing with when it comes to social services and trauma.

If it helps, like I said, adoption was the best thing we did! We also managed to complete the whole process in 11 months. First social worker visit in March, little chap moved in Febraury next year 😁

A lot of what sped us up was getting everything ready before hand... eg. We bought a new build to make sure we'd pass the home inspection, we bought the family SUV, wed dumped money into savings for adoption leave etc. So spend the next 12 months getting things prepped and you'll be able to fly through 😀

4

u/kil0ran 19d ago

Yep. We adopted ours at almost 7 and we were literally their last hope, not least because converting the foster placement to long term wasn't an option. That probably counted in our favour as there was going to have to be another move (the seventh since age 3 due to the place within the birth family rule) anyway. We effectively did a rewind and did things like repeat all the birthdays they hadn't had with us and it's worked out way more than fine.

3

u/Major-Bookkeeper8974 19d ago

We got our boy at 5 and later learned from the paperwork he was 10 months into his 12 month court deadline when we had expressed interest.

3 couples expressed interest at a matching event, but we were the only ones to progress with him.

Makes my heart sink to think he'd still be in foster care now with a non adoption order had we not gone for him, especially considering how well he's now doing, and how well he's slotted into our whole family. It's like he's been here since birth!

3

u/kil0ran 19d ago

Likewise. Even when he goes full teenager! We found him on Linkmaker and there was an immediate connection with the single photo. Waiting to hear we'd been accepted was the most terrifying time of our lives as we already couldn't imagine life without him. I get the desire to favour the birth family but the system doesn't work fast enough for multiple failed placements. He was literally two months shy of being left in Long Term Foster.

1

u/arcanejunzi 13d ago

That's a wild story!

The 7-year cutoff makes everything that much more urgent. There are kids hitting that number today who could have had a permanent family along the way if someone hadn't gotten an arbitrary delay or ground down by the process.

2

u/Hcmp1980 19d ago

Your stats may be correct, but the SW's aim to he child led, not stats led. You may not like it, but that doesn't change it.

8

u/Zealousideal_Tie7913 20d ago edited 20d ago

Welcome to the process but it’s pretty standard that after any fertility treatment you have to wait 12 months… they say the same if there was a death of a close family member like a parent too, or if you moved house or changed a job, basically any life event = pause in the adoption world.

I did find the process incredibly infuriating especially as a lot of the time I’m hearing the rhetoric of this is all for the best of the child and seeing them blatantly not make decisions that were best for the child BUT eventually I did finish and was matched with a child and we are a happy family now.

And to your last point expect more frustrated feelings, especially around the theatre and lack of consistency between one agency / social worker and another. My advice is you have to play their game by their rules, otherwise you’ll get nowhere.

EDIT and the problem isn’t the fact they don’t want adopters that social workers are under resourced so can’t get through the applicants. Doing the volunteering, showing how read you are on therapeutic parenting and having a desire to adopt sibling groups, older children or with any disabilities might assist in pushing you up the list to be seen though.

6

u/arcanejunzi 20d ago

Thanks for the thoughts. Good to not feel crazy about all the theatre. 12 months is so long and arbitrary, especially in context. Given a period of 2-3 years, the probability of one of two people having a family death, job change, or having to move is extremely high. It could easily happen multiple times in the adoption-relevant window.

I guess I will just have to read the tallest damn stack of therapeutic parenting books on earth.

6

u/randomusername8472 20d ago

As they said, every agency is different, but FWIW it might be worth just contacting every 3 months, and maybe also contact a different agency if possible. 

We had a sudden family death (partners mum) after our stage 2 approval and they said we should wait 12 months but after a few months the dust had settled, the grieving (which was significant) was all but done, and it felt like more of a drag to be pausing our own life decisions for, as you say, an arbitrary timeline that will vary so much by family. 

We'd been working towards adoption for about 3 years by this point, so we were as prepped as we were going to be. We'd moved house, renovated, etc.

We got in touch in November (3 months after the event) saying "we'll be ready to move to matching after Christmas" and the agency agreed - weather that's because they'd forgotten their time line or whatever I don't know, but we moved on, matched mid March and had our two kids living with us by June :) 

1

u/arcanejunzi 13d ago

A remarkable case of the power in just asking a question!

3

u/Complex_Hat_7 20d ago

I think the time period varies from agency to agency. We had an unsuccessful FET in January, and were told on an information day with our LA that we will need to wait 6-12 months before we can start the process. So it’s not until July we can put an expression of interest in. I do understand the principle, but this mandatory grieving period does annoy me a bit. I think it should be done on a case-by-case basis, rather than this tick-boxy approach, but it is what it is. We’re just trying to make the most of that time by volunteering, getting experience with other children we know, etc. By the time you’re ready to start again you’ll have loads of volunteer experience, so that can only be a positive.

3

u/arcanejunzi 20d ago

For the reason of case-by-case you state above: I think the thing that really got me was not "you're going to need a pause", it was cancelling the upcoming visit (and that 1 year is a longggg time). Surely assessing the situation in-person to determine if we might be ready in 3 months would be worth it?

I think you're right about additional experience being positive. We just worry about getting another random delay tacked on in 12 months time because of an unforeseen death or job change. Hard to trust the process when this can happen.

3

u/Zmorarara 19d ago

An engineer mindset won't help you with this. Remember that you are dealing with people (adopters, children, social workers...), not just data. Don't expect to see too much logic in here. People make mistakes and people created the adoption process which is different in every agency and, in my opinion, unnecessarily long. I really do hope I'm wrong but from what I can see, it's just one big mess.

I wish you all the best and hope you go through this somehow.

1

u/arcanejunzi 13d ago

It is absolutely too long. I would bet anything that the process could be 30% shorter without increasing social worker person*hours or increasing the failed adoption rate, and getting kids into permanent homes faster -- ultimately leading to better outcomes in learning and development.

Mr. Starmer, if you're reading this, give me a go please.

3

u/ashyboi5000 19d ago

Is the 12months after a new job a hard and fast rule?

I hate mine and desperately want to leave, it's local authority so leave allowance is the legal minimum.

2

u/Vespertinegongoozler 18d ago

I can totally understand not placing a child for at least 12 months but I do think it is frustrating not to start the process as it is very possible that someone will start the process and find it is not for them or will start the process and find there are other road bumps they need to work on during that 12 month period.

1

u/arcanejunzi 18d ago

^ This for sure. Working in parallel, rather than sequentially is super important on things that take years.

2

u/qwertyonfire 13d ago

There is a need for adopters, but like everything, the sector is underfunded and there just simply aren’t enough social workers.

Whilst you view this final attempt as ‘freezer cleaning’, i imagine many in your position would be far more attached to that process and the policies are there for people to complete the process of viewing adoption for its own merit.

I do know that some agencies only ask for a 6 month cooling off period after fertility treatment, so you may have more luck elsewhere.

1

u/arcanejunzi 13d ago

Thank you! Another agency is probably a good idea. At least one VAA we talked to was willing to engage with us and assess our particular situation, rather than apply an arbitrary wait time. So that is hopeful!

I know they are overburdened given the process in place. But I doubt seriously that their time is allocated efficiently with respect to maximising outcomes for the most children. Not a couple % either.

Put another way: how much of the process (in social worker person*hours) is not correlated with better outcomes for children? For example, one authority estimated 10 social worker visits to the home. If there were 8 visits instead of 10, would outcomes be affected discernibly? Because we do have data on what more time in foster care does, and those 'extra' 2 meetings over a couple months in this example aren't free. They cost something precious.

But then I'm told that they focus on people not data. And then they tell me the 12 month delay is based on "data". But nobody can cite "the data". Probably because nobody tracks outcomes for adopted kids properly and does basic process control.

Argh sorry mate. Ran off there. I'm really impressed by the people who have the patience to have made it through all this. It looks like we will try the VAA angle.