Problem adoptions

[Rothgo]

A very interesting article here on 'failed adoptions'.

Interesting firstly just as it stands - after agencies take so much effort to screen prospective adptive parents, almost insanely daft loops to jump through in some cases, why do they cease their care/work when the adoption goes through? Should they assume all adoptions work? Are adpotions legally (and/or morally) exactly the same as biological birth, and if not, why not?

Secondly, and related to the "assume all adoptions work" approach - the same issues are present for all parents - not just adpotive ones. Why assume any given parent can handle any given child? Money obviously, but that 'obvious' hides a lot of indirect costs and could be totally wrong: I have no data to say true/false on that. And then there's the issue that money is no means to measure people or society anyway.

[thingfish]

My twin brother and i were the victims of three failed adoptions the first one being when we were only 7.
Two of them were because of violent and abusive 'parents' and the last one we got thrown out at 16 and told not to come back.
Of course that was in the 70s when screening i imagine was a bit less strenious.
Im not sure about the legal status Rothgo but i always imagined it was the same as bio birth but morally it certainly should be although it never felt like it.
On the second point,every adoptive parent we had were reasonably flush except for one pair who were working class(the only adoption that worked btw between ages 10-14)but unfortunately one of them died and the other was not capable of looking after us alone(so said the authorities,but i disagree to this day.)So im not sure about the money factor coming into play.

[Rothgo]

I wasn't focusing on the adoptive family's cash tf, rather than "societies cash" as regards additional work from agencies supporting adoption after the event vs additional cash if an adoption fails and so on.

You raise a good point however - not surprising given that you practical experience! The inference I take from your experience is that one of your 'failed' adoptions you suspect failed due to interference form the state, not through lack of such intervention? And all based on bloody money again.

[thingfish]

Sorry Rothgo,i misread the question again!
Re your point on state intervention,what makes me angry in retrospect was that back then there was more scrutiny on adopted parents from a poorer background than wealthier ones only because the state reckoned that because they had more money all problems could be easier sorted which was seriously not the case.
But the other side of the coin was that when there was less scrutiny i used to hear of adoptive parents from a poorer background who would just take on the kids to get more benefits and then just neglect them(especially in the 80s)
Most of these people were found out eventually even with the basic scrutiny but a lot of the more better off parents got away with it for a wee bit longer.
Im glad this doesnt happen so much(if at all) these days.
Up until quite recently i was a volunteer at the local orphanage we were in for a short time and i was encouraged by the change in attitude towards the overall welfare of the kids these days compared to then.
The emphasis in recent times is more on emotional stability than financial position which is a giant step forward.
Long may this continue.

[The Jeopardised Leprechaun]

Totally agree with the 'emotional stability' criteria, which should be the main driver for determining suitability as parents.

There is certainly a lack of resource in the 'children's services', they have to play the percentages and make a guess on whether there are going to be problems going forward, then put resources where they think there's a higher risk.

Also happens with 'natural' kids; post-maternity support is not great, and it's usually a time of massive stress in a family.