Impact of the recession on adoption

Pink Adoptions

It has to be wondered how adoption will be impacted by the recession:

• Negative equity means a number of people with a home and a job will be seen as having a financial liability.
• Less money will be available to finance the adoption process. (Especially international adoption,because of the travelling and local legal agents)
• Less money will be availabel to raise a child.

It will be interesting to see how this affects people withdrawing or postponing, and people being given negative recommendations for financial reasons.

neelyohara

Does anyone have the stats for adoption within Ireland at the moment? I mean... how many Irish children are placed for adoption. I've never considered this and it's an interesting topic, especially given the interest in overseas adoptions.

adoptionrights

Hi there,

Thankfully, there are very few Irish children are available for adoption in Ireland and this has been the situation for many years now, because families are staying together, which is great.

For anyone who is in a position to give a child a home, I would strongly recommend long term fostering - there are thousands of Irish children in need of loving homes at the moment - a possibility well worth looking into.

I hope that one positive thing that might come out of this recession in terms of adoption, is that the developing countries might, due to a possible decrease in demand, look inwardly and make greater efforts to keep these children in their own communities - Vietnam for example, doesn't even have a domestic adoption department.

Regards,

Claire
Adoption Rights Alliance

Pink Adoptions

adoptionrights wrote: »

Hi there,

Thankfully, there are very few Irish children are available for adoption in Ireland and this has been the situation for many years now, because families are staying together, which is great.

For anyone who is in a position to give a child a home, I would strongly recommend long term fostering - there are thousands of Irish children in need of loving homes at the moment - a possibility well worth looking into.

I hope that one positive thing that might come out of this recession in terms of adoption, is that the developing countries might, due to a possible decrease in demand, look inwardly and make greater efforts to keep these children in their own communities - Vietnam for example, doesn't even have a domestic adoption department.

Regards,

Claire
Adoption Rights Alliance

Unfortunately a darker side of the coin is that many children are refused a stable family on the illusion that some parents can "get it together".

When a family has been unable or unwilling to parent a child for a year, and that 3 attempts to re-unite the family has failed, is it really in the best interest of the child to keep trying?

Should there not be some kind of agreed framework for allowing children to avail of adoptive services faster? Children cannot wait forever for some parents to maybe hopefully get their act together.
If these adoption are open enough, the child can still benefit from a contact with their birth parents once they are back to being suitable parents (they don't even need to be tried and tested as rigorously as the adoptive parents were...)

Too many children are suffering uncertainty and temporary arrangement to preserve the myth of the “natural family”.
Let’s try a new myth: the happy child.

The_Conductor

I am 100% against a framework for speeding up adoptions.
If the principle reason a lot of children are being placed for adoption are financially motivated- surely the answer is to look at the current structures in place to support families, rather than opening a trapdoor under them? Many people worldwide are suffering the effects of the recession and the jobless recovery- in a vast preponderance of cases, people would be only too happy to work, were the opportunity afforded them.

There is a set framework in place regarding adoptions- the central tenent of which is the evaluation of the prospective adoptive parents and the home environment they propose to provide to the child. The child has to be at the centre of this equation- and any actions or proposals have to reflect what is in the best interests of the child. So- it may take an inordinate amount of time for prospective adoptive parents to jump through the various hurdles the HSE and/or agencies specify. If these checks result in even one child being spared a traumatic upbringing- they will have been worthwhile......

People seem to have an expectation that they have some inherent right to have children, or in the absence of the ability to have children, the right to care for a child. Bringing up a child is not a right however, it is a lifelong commitment to focusing on the child (or children) and acting selflessly in their best interests...........

Certainly times are hard- and people finances are shot- but to even suggest the current straightened financial times are any sort of a justification for loosening the criteria governing placing children for adoption- is quite startling, and in my opinion, suggestive of motives other than the best interests of the child, being behind people's want to adopt in the first instance.

Regards,

SMcCarrick

Pink Adoptions

smccarrick wrote: »

I am 100% against a framework for speeding up adoptions.
If the principle reason a lot of children are being placed for adoption are financially motivated- surely the answer is to look at the current structures in place to support families, rather than opening a trapdoor under them? Many people worldwide are suffering the effects of the recession and the jobless recovery- in a vast preponderance of cases, people would be only too happy to work, were the opportunity afforded them.

There is a set framework in place regarding adoptions- the central tenent of which is the evaluation of the prospective adoptive parents and the home environment they propose to provide to the child. The child has to be at the centre of this equation- and any actions or proposals have to reflect what is in the best interests of the child. So- it may take an inordinate amount of time for prospective adoptive parents to jump through the various hurdles the HSE and/or agencies specify. If these checks result in even one child being spared a traumatic upbringing- they will have been worthwhile......

People seem to have an expectation that they have some inherent right to have children, or in the absence of the ability to have children, the right to care for a child. Bringing up a child is not a right however, it is a lifelong commitment to focusing on the child (or children) and acting selflessly in their best interests...........

Certainly times are hard- and people finances are shot- but to even suggest the current straightened financial times are any sort of a justification for loosening the criteria governing placing children for adoption- is quite startling, and in my opinion, suggestive of motives other than the best interests of the child, being behind people's want to adopt in the first instance.

Regards,

SMcCarrick

There is a clear difference between money-strapped parents, and parents that are unable or unwilling to parent.
Such a framework is not about cash-strapped parents. The recession remark was only about one thing: cash-strapped adoptive parents may be less able to meet suitability criteria or less willing to raise a child in the current climate.

As regards the sped up framework (or cash-strapped birth parents), which was not an issue originally raised…there is a European-wide debate open on the question of speeding up the possibility for children to access adoptive services faster. Not for adoptive parents to have a child faster. Adoption is a right of the children, not of the parents.
In the process of the debate in other European countries, groups defending people who suffer financial hardship have been right to point out that financial hardship can lead to neglect of the children welfare, but that it cannot be blamed solely on the parents. Thus that such a framework should take it into account and not “punish the poor”.
See: http://irishpinkadoptions.com/2011/02/22/2011-02-22-france-academie-de-medicine-favour-making-domestic-adoptions-easier/

But they also accept that there are cases where the issue is not financial, when the children are "re-united" over and over again with unfit parents. And separated again.
The idea of a framework is to define, in the best interest of the child, when enough is enough, and when society as a whole and children in particular are better off calling it a day.

The message to children cannot be that they are better off with abusive parents just because they gave them birth.

Also the speeding up is not to do with assessment of the "prospective" parents. This is a separate issue where time is wasted not assessing, time is wasting between real assessment.
It is a matter for the Adoption Authority and the HSE to streamline their processes to make assessment happen in a normal timeframes, with the same level of rigor.

The speeding up is about allowing children to avail of adoption.
It is not about making it faster or easier to "make them available for adoption". They are not cattle.

It is about allowing a child to grow in a stable loving caring family, rather than being moved every 3 months, between foster parents and back into a birth family that is not fit. Just for the sake of experimenting how long it takes for the parents to improve. The child cannot afford that experimentation!

Foster care parents are great and dedicated, but should fostering been seen as a long term solution?
Is it fair on the child to let them be years after years in a loving caring family, but with the constant risk of being returned to an abusive/negligent birth family?

The assumption that every social issue faced by birth parents is to blame on economical factors and on "society" is an aberration that children should no longer have to suffer from.
So is the assumption that somehow a birth family is always better, even if they are unfit for most of the child's childhood.

Adoption is a right of the child, so is family.
It is not a right of the adoptive parents, nor is it a right of the birth family.

Pink Adoptions

And by the way there is already some sort of framework to determine when parents are so unfit that the children become wards of the State, especially in case of abuse.
These frameworks have timelines that need to be reduced. The frameworks need to be revisited in the lights of modern days.

bbam

smccarrick wrote: »

There is a set framework in place regarding adoptions- the central tenent of which is the evaluation of the prospective adoptive parents and the home environment they propose to provide to the child. The child has to be at the centre of this equation- and any actions or proposals have to reflect what is in the best interests of the child. So- it may take an inordinate amount of time for prospective adoptive parents to jump through the various hurdles the HSE and/or agencies specify. If these checks result in even one child being spared a traumatic upbringing- they will have been worthwhile......

Having been through this process twice I can only fully support it..
It's not quick nor easy and at times seems overwhelming and excessively intrusive..
However I can not imagine the responsibility of assessing potential parents so that a child will permanently be placed with them... anything which would shortcut this process would bring potentially dangerous consequences.

Ostrom

Pink Adoptions wrote: »

It is about allowing a child to grow in a stable loving caring family, rather than being moved every 3 months, between foster parents and back into a birth family that is not fit. Just for the sake of experimenting how long it takes for the parents to improve. The child cannot afford that experimentation![/COLOR]

Foster care parents are great and dedicated, but should fostering been seen as a long term solution?
Is it fair on the child to let them be years after years in a loving caring family, but with the constant risk of being returned to an abusive/negligent birth family?

The assumption that every social issue faced by birth parents is to blame on economical factors and on "society" is an aberration that children should no longer have to suffer from.
So is the assumption that somehow a birth family is always better, even if they are unfit for most of the child's childhood.

Adoption is a right of the child, so is family.
It is not a right of the adoptive parents, nor is it a right of the birth family.

How prevalent is this? Given the shift toward intercountry placements over the past two decades, what proportion of adoption cases do these repeat foster / movers comprise (apologies for the crude phrasing).

I would have to agree with smccarrick on this - particularly when considering coming changes in intercountry facilitation arrangements (unfortunately it appears to be legal provisions and administrative changes that get most publicity) - no compromises must be made on assessment procedures.

This forum is full of cautions against previous light regulation - I know you're not suggesting this, but my opinion is that child welfare should be the operative term - and I cant see how an alteration such as you suggest could fully incorporate this.

Pink Adoptions

efla wrote: »

How prevalent is this? Given the shift toward intercountry placements over the past two decades, what proportion of adoption cases do these repeat foster / movers comprise (apologies for the crude phrasing).

I would have to agree with smccarrick on this - particularly when considering coming changes in intercountry facilitation arrangements (unfortunately it appears to be legal provisions and administrative changes that get most publicity) - no compromises must be made on assessment procedures.

This forum is full of cautions against previous light regulation - I know you're not suggesting this, but my opinion is that child welfare should be the operative term - and I cant see how an alteration such as you suggest could fully incorporate this.

Our suggestions, again, have nothing to do with shortcutting assessments.
It has to do with allowing children to avail of adoption faster. The adoptive parents are already there in numbers, already assessed.

Assessment should not be made faster or easier in itself.
Not should referrals of a child to an adoptive parent be faster.
What should be faster is the time between a situation becoming untenable for the child, and the time they can avail of adoption.

As for the proportion of children concerned, it can only be known once new frameworks are in place.
It is probably more significant than you suspect, and it is reflected in the increased needs for long-term foster parents and the pressure on the existing pool of parents.

Quite a number of our members or contributors are told they might have a long term foster child in a matter of months, rather than wait for years to adopt a child.

The_Conductor

Foster care and adoption are two entirely different propositions though.

You are delibertly suggesting that children are waiting to be adopted- and suggesting that the period they are waiting is somehow a period for parents to try to get their acts together and that somehow this is unfair on the child(ren).

We can argue until the cows come home over whether an adoptive parent is a better parent for a child than a parent who for whatever reason is experiencing difficulty in parenting.

You are glossing over this with suggestions of how in a modern Ireland- we can have open adoptions and the child wouldn't necessarily be a stranger to their birthparents. Unfortunately open adoptions are not recognised in Irish law- and several birthparents who signed what they thought were agreements with adoptive parents for limited visitation rights, photographs etc- subsequently found to their consternation that the adoptive parents legally could do precisely what they want- and the agreements they made prior to the adoption are unenforceable.

There is always going to be a need for foster carers- however foster care, even longer term foster care, and adoption- irrespective of how you like to compare them- really are different things altogether.

Look at the demographics of fostercare- on the part of carers- there are not the age, health and earning restrictions that apply to prospective adoptive parents. There are also state structures and supports in place, financial and otherwise- that are not available to adoptive parents. The flipside of the coin is that the carers have to accept that they are acting selflessly in the best interests of the child, and that the child may not be with them for a protracted period of time. There is also the big issue of people not accepting that a foster carer is entitled to act in the role of parent for the purpose of signing forms, agreeing to medical interventions etc etc etc.

On the part of birthparents- more often than not there has been some sort of family breakdown- for one reason or another- and the supports are not there for either parent to take over as a single parent.

On the part of children- well, they are not the traditional pinkfaced bubbly babies that folk imagine they are/will be adopting- they tend to be older- often teenagers, and more often than not, have been badly traumatised by their life experiences.

The big thing that needs reform- certainly is the foster care system. Waving a magic wand and telling the foster carers that they adopt the children/teenagers/young adults placed with them- is not a simple one size fits all solution however. You can't create a system where the less traumatised children would qualify for adoption- while those who have 'issues' (and how I hate that word)- would be consigned to the proverbial scrap heap.......

I have the utmost of respect for foster parents, and I appreciate the wonderful work they do. They deserve more support- and a modification of the foster care structure- to better serve the needs of the child. At present- adoption- while possibly what many foster parents think about- is quite simply a wholly different proposition, than fostering a child/teenager/young adult.

As a total aside- even for a baby- adoption can itself be an incredibly traumatic experience- this is rarely recognised though- and adoptive parents themselves need to learn that parenting an adoptive child is not the same as parenting any other child- sigh......

Children in the foster syetem (and there are actually fewer than you imagine- older kids and teenagers are far more abundant)- are very often there for shortterm reasons- the biggest of which is at present- the HSE does not have a solution to cater to needs of parents who for very short periods of time (e.g. serious illness, and no family members who can step in) to assist in caring for young children.

I am not for a moment taking away from the wonderful work most foster parents do- I am suggesting they need further supports- along with a redefinition of their roles/tasks/responsibilities- among other things to enable them to make decisions on behalf of long term children in their care. Adoption however- despite what you may think- is a wholly different proposition- and brings with it, a whole plethora of other issues that you don't seem to have considered.

You state that the window between the situation a child is in, and the time it takes for them to be allowed to be adopted- is what needs reform. The situation a(ny) child is in- certainly should be monitored on an on-going basis, with a preponderance of monitoring in parenting situations where the child might be considered to be at risk (for whatever reason). The aim should not be to get the child out of this situation and into the system asap- it should be to provide whatever supports (emotional or otherwise) are necessary to the parents, to enable them to better parent their children. Only when the situation is untenable- should children be removed from their parents- and the next step in the chain- the next support structure- if the foster care system. One cannot automatically and unilaterly decide that a one size fits all approash- of after x amount of time- having children in care adopted- fits all solutions- and you can be certain in an Irish context that it'll (the process) be abused before long........

Each child/teenager/youngadult/birthparent/fosterparent/adoptive parent- is an individual, and deserves to have their individual situations looked at. No-one is uniquely placed to decide that because someone is a respected and capable foster carer- that they can wave a magic wand and parent an adopted child in a manner that is in the childs best interests.

From my own perspective- it is my belief that there is a startling lack of recognition of the trauma associated with adoption- on all parties- alongside myths and fairytales peddled by the media, that have very little to do with what happens in real life. Education is key here- however somehow I doubt much is going to happen anytime soon.

bbam

smccarrick wrote: »

As a total aside- even for a baby- adoption can itself be an incredibly traumatic experience- this is rarely recognised though- and adoptive parents themselves need to learn that parenting an adoptive child is not the same as parenting any other child- sigh......

From experience I would say that trauma and loss are huge parts of the preparation process for adoptive parents. As is the process of parenting an adoptive child rather than parenting birth children (not that that is all sweetness and light all the time either)..

We spoke at length about the grief experienced both during the immediate adoptive process and that which will surely be experienced in the future..

The preparation process IS thorough, probably much more thorough than most people understand, and I would dare to say that unless a person has been through the process for themselves they are not in a position to comment on it's quality or content..