for the attention of birth parents/birth relatives

Moderator: AfterAdoption

Postby Montravia » Fri Dec 02, 2005 2:08 pm


You're an angel, Ian Josephs told me about that website but I wrote it down wrong so thank you.

Posts: 232
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2005 10:02 pm

Postby tina » Sat Dec 03, 2005 1:19 am

Hiya piglet, its even worse than that im afraid, it is social services or private agencies you will have to go through, be it the adoptee or the birth parent and then its the court that releases information, depending on the recommendations. If the agency, who i might add will be charging an arm and a leg, or social services dont think intentions are honourable then no information will be released. It will be illegal for internet sites to offer helpm though i dont know how they intend to monitor all the forums, but i guess they will be able to shut sites down. The bottom line is unless you are employed by a goverment approved agency then it will be illegal for any individual to offer advice. :cry: :evil:
i would rather be disliked for being me than loved for being what im not.
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 10:14 pm
Location: scouser living in birmingham

Postby Josie » Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:04 pm

With current government pushing adoption; do you think it is possible that there is an agenda to make adoption more attractive to potential adopters, by keeping possible future contact under strict government control, thus leaving the adoptive parents feeling protected from unwanted ''instrusion'' from the natural Mother or Father...or is that me being a paranoid cynic?

I am only writing this because I am hoping to be quoted in guests Daily News Update.
Posts: 1037
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 10:14 am

Postby Guest » Sun Dec 04, 2005 10:03 pm

I think there is some truth in what you suggest. A number of adoptive parents do feel threatened and worried about future contact and interference. Sometimes rightly so. Once the parents have relinquished their legal rights to the child it is up to the adoptive parents on how best to bring up their child.
Decisions are made, often bad ones, but usually made in an attempt to settle a child in a new family with good intentions.
Some adoptive parents may feel their relationship with their child will be stabilised if contact with birth families is under strict government control. Other adoptive parents would like to include birth familes in their lives a bit more but have been advised by Social Services badly.

Postby Guest » Sun Dec 04, 2005 10:16 pm

Bear in mind that it happens on both sides. Most of the kids I have fostered have come from abusive or neglected environments so it has not applied but my youngest adoptive son who is six now came from a loving home where his young mother, she is 21 this year, could not cope. When I spoke with social services about contact with his brith family they insisted it would be an unsettling experience for him and the mother did not want to keep in touch. I accepted it at the time and carried on as normal. About eighteen months ago we received letters backdated from three years from his mother asking for writing access and photographs. This was all through social services but their only explanation was the case worker had decided contact was not suitable at the time.
They mess us about at this side as much as your side.

Postby Guest » Sun Dec 04, 2005 10:58 pm

Talking about suicides in birth mothers this article might be of interest:

In Memoriam: Cindy Jordan
The lure and pitfalls of open adoption

Most pregnant women who are contemplating adoption for their child are aware that there are various formulas from which they can choose. An increasingly popular form of adoption is what is known as "open adoption", in which the parties agree to varying degrees of openness toward each other with respect to their identities and whereabouts, and to varying degrees of ongoing contact after placement. In fact, the possibility of having an open adoption and thus ensuring ongoing contact with their child after his or her adoption is a deciding factor for many women who would otherwise keep their baby.

If you are an unsupported pregnant woman looking into adoption and you think this kind of arrangement sounds like the best of both worlds, you should know that if you select this path, the arrangement you will be arriving at with your child's adoptive parents will not be legally enforceable. You will be literally at the mercy of your child's adoptive parents' willingness to allow you access to your child as promised.

One American source suggests as many as 80% of 'open adoptions' are unilaterally closed by adoptive parents in the first year after the adoption is finalized. These just aren't good odds for a mother contemplating adoption for her child. Chances are, if they promise you'll get to visit your child, you won't. Some 'open adoptions' are only a letter or a photo once or twice a year. Even in these types of adoption, adoptive parents often renege. The grief of mothers who lose their children again in these ways is increased by the knowledge that their 'choice' is not respected, and that people who don't respect their own promises are raising their children.

You should also be aware that some unscrupulous prospective adoptive parents and "adoption facilitators" use the lure of open adoption to convince pregnant women to place their babies for adoption, knowing all the while that they have no intention of honoring their promises.

Sometimes, failure to live up to such agreements can have tragic consequences. Cindy Jordan, the natural mother of 3-year-old Malia, took her own life on April 8th , and the pitfalls of open adoption may have played a role in her untimely death.

Cindy's daughter, Malia, was placed in a semi-open adoption with Susan Burns, whose book entitled "Fast Track Adoption" was published last December. Here is how Amazon describes "Fast Track Adoption":

Most couples in the U.S. have to wait up to seven years to adopt an infant domestically-and all the expense and waiting doesn't always result in a successful adoption. Now, rather than relying on slow-paced and expensive adoption agencies, many couples are choosing to privately adopt a child. By eliminating the adoption agency, couples can customize and control their own adoption plan.

Inside this book, couples will learn how becoming proactive in the adoption process may significantly speed up the adoption. Following the Fast Track method, readers will learn how to:

Establish a budget
Assemble a professional team
Obtain an approved home study
Prepare an effective family profile
Advertise for and talk to potential birth mothers
Detect warning signs for frauds and scams
Be prepared at the hospital
With this book as their guide, potential parents can actively pick their own birth mother. By doing so, couples will save time and money, reduce stress, and, most importantly, find a baby to adopt.

If you think that this sounds like a blueprint for manipulating the adoption process and a vulnerable pregnant woman to your advantage, you are right. The press release on "Fast Track Adoption" was written by Laurie Frisch, of Origins USA.

Cindy, who had by then begun her descent into depression following the unilateral closing of her daughter's adoption by Ms. Burns, found out by accident about the book. Here is a posting she wrote to an on-line group she belonged to, after reading the book written by her daughter's adoptive mother and finding out about the method used to obtain her daughter:

I am lost again .. I so much do not even know what to think .. I know now that all the bonding they did with me was all part of a plan .. a plan to make me feel good at the time .. and to "ensure" a successful candidate for placement .. I feel sick ..

This is a specific on-line comment that Cindy made about Susan Burns:

…with Sue I gave more I gave a part of me .. and I thought she liked me for me but if you like someone you want to interact with them not forget they exist…

To find out more about Cindy Jordan, please follow this link:

May you rest in peace Cindy. You are not forgotten.

April 2004

"What you should know if you're considering adoption for your baby"... Heather Lowe

Postby Guest » Sun Dec 04, 2005 11:17 pm

Chin up piglit.....
Life is a funny old game, you never know the next surprise.....

Night, sleep tight

Postby Gerry » Mon Dec 05, 2005 12:51 am

Yes Piglit and Tina are correct. After 30/12/2005 you do have to go through an approved agency at a cost and worse still... The social worker has the final say whether contact is appropriate or not.

Postby Tigerfeet » Mon Dec 05, 2005 9:20 am

Im sorry to ask this the question has already been asked but this new piece of government waffle has not been publicised enough. Does it mean that children cannot look for their birth relatives after 31 December 2005? I want to look for my half brothers in Canada.

Also, if contact has been lost between birth parents does this mean that if they want contact with a birth child (I hate that term) then it has to go through the agency system?

Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 11:55 am
Location: Cheshire

Postby Tigerfeet » Mon Dec 05, 2005 12:15 pm

Thanks for your help Piglit

Fran x
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 11:55 am
Location: Cheshire

Cindy-that poor lady

Postby samba274 » Wed Dec 07, 2005 3:36 am

though my story is different I too can see similarities here the betrayl-is there a difference between the fiscally led adoption scandal in the US and the quota-led system in the Uk, (see FASSIT for more details). . .as for the law changing- I might have known it would not change to help birth parents/children-but ultimately not adopters either. I believe that as an adult we owe it to our children to do whats best. . .and posts seem to confirm that this is to at least find out details about birth families. . .how does making that more difficult help? As for my views on closed adoption I believe these are viewed as the better option as they are seen as easier for the social services, In fact I was told open adoption makes it far more difficult to place children. . .no doubt my sons adopters were told it would be the best option too. . .and now with the new legislation. . . how can they still claim they are acting in the best interests of children. . .it is a generalisation which should be challenged :!:

Return to Links

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest