adoption
‘We love our adopted children… but after years of violent attacks we had no choice but to put them back in care’: Shattered parents reveal why so many adoptions fail to HELEN CARROLL
‘We love our adopted children… but after years of violent attacks we had no choice but to put them back in care’: Shattered parents reveal why so many adoptions fail to HELEN CARROLL
By HELEN CARROLL FOR THE DAILY MAIL
Published: 01:58, 29 November 2024 | Updated: 16:13, 29 November 2024
Having met while working at a children’s charity, Naomi and Martin were aware of the challenges of adopting children who have had a difficult start in life.
They also believed that, given their experience, if any couple had the skills needed to provide the right mix of love, nurturing and guidance required, it was them. However, 12 years after adopting two young children – years in which the parents were beaten and abused so violently they regularly had to call the police, and both suffered nervous breakdowns – the children, now aged 15 and 16, are back in care.
They lay the blame for this heartbreaking situation squarely on their local authority which, they say – due to a lack of funding and a ‘pass the buck’ culture – totally abandoned them to their fate.
Says Naomi, 45: ‘We did our best, but the children desperately needed professional help which, once they were officially adopted by us, was almost impossible to access.
‘I’m not saying that I thought we’d ‘save’ them, but I, naively, believed that with love, stability and permanence we were providing an environment in which any difficulties that arose could be worked through.
‘We never bargained for being kicked, hit, spat at and verbally abused – Martin is deaf in one ear after one particularly vicious punch from our son – and certainly not for the relationship with our children to completely break down.’
It’s notable, and poignantly sad, that this couple still refer to the brother and sister, whom they welcomed into their home aged two and three, as ‘theirs’. They love them and feel guilty about what happened.
They’d gone into the adoption process longing for a forever happy family, after learning they were unable to have children themselves.
Adoptive parents have been left traumatised, their marriages wrecked – and even driven to taking their own lives – by a system incapable of supporting them, writes Helen Carroll
It’s a tragedy shared by hundreds of adoptive parents across the UK, who’ve been left traumatised, their marriages wrecked – and even, in extreme cases, driven to taking their own lives – by a system woefully incapable of supporting them.
One support group, PATCH (Passionate Adopters Targeting Change with Hope), which has 700 members, is campaigning for systemic change to address this ‘crisis’. Most members share the same grievance: that children are almost always removed from their birth parents due to significant abuse or neglect, which often begins during pregnancy, where they are exposed to drugs and alcohol. This leaves the children with symptoms of extreme trauma.
However, when behavioural issues manifest post-adoption – some of which can be genetic – the adoptive parents are left to fend alone and, ultimately, blamed when the situation becomes unmanageable.
According to figures from Adoption UK, 65 per cent of adoptive parents experience violence or aggression at the hands of their children. And, based on responses to the charity’s annual survey, the number of adopted children leaving the family home ‘prematurely’ is rising, from three per cent in 2021, to seven per cent in 2023.
‘There’s a common, but false, belief that trauma is healed through love, and therefore adoption is the happy ever after, which any psychologist or psychotherapist will attest, it is not,’ says Fiona Wells, who runs PATCH and is herself a social worker, working in fostering, and also both an adopter and adoptee.
According to figures from Adoption UK, 65 per cent of adoptive parents experience violence or aggression at the hands of their children
‘Social workers are not experts in trauma, they’re experts in risk and family life. What these families need is trauma-informed therapeutic, as well as practical, support, but once an adoption is finalised the children, and any issues they have, seem to be considered the responsibility of the adoptive parents.
‘Support is, technically, available, through regional adoption agencies, but there are often lengthy delays and misdirected guidance towards inappropriate solutions which perpetuate the problems.’ Naomi and Martin’s experience was sadly typical. The children, Tamsin and Joseph, had been taken into foster care aged one and two having suffered extreme neglect. Their mother abused drugs and alcohol, and they were not fed or washed. Their biological father was in prison for domestic violence.
Joseph was still a toddler when he started lashing out at them. Naturally, the couple turned to their social worker for guidance.
The only advice was to use ‘non-violent restraint’, such as changing the subject and distracting the child in a confrontational situation, and ‘natural consequences’ tactics i.e. leaving it to the child to work out the results of their actions themselves.
Blunt instruments indeed when you are being punched in the head or attacked with a baseball bat.
As one specialist adoption solicitor put it, with highly damaged children the approaches are like ‘applying an Elastoplast to an arterial wound’.
Unsurprisingly, things got worse. Their daughter’s violent outbursts began after she started secondary school.
Naomi believes this was due to her being dyslexic and on the autism spectrum – although she was never diagnosed. Again, the social workers were of little use.
Tamsin was 14 when, after a fall out over something Naomi struggles to recall, she attacked Martin so viciously, biting him and hitting him with a bat, that Naomi had no alternative but to call the police for help.
‘They arrested her, keeping her in a cell overnight, which was horrific, but they thought it would teach her a lesson,’ says Naomi. ‘Sadly, it didn’t, and it happened again, two weeks later.’
Then, one day she returned from a brief dog walk to find Joseph and Tamsin brutally attacking one another, close to the top of the staircase, ‘biting, scratching, kicking, hair pulling and spraying deodorant into each other’s faces’.
After trying, in vain, to separate them, in desperation Naomi called the police again. By the time officers arrived, the siblings had fled and Joseph was later found, sitting on a railway bridge, threatening to jump.
When behavioural issues manifest post-adoption – some of which can be genetic – parents are left to fend alone and blamed when the situation becomes unmanageable (file image)
Police managed to pull him to safety, and he was referred to CAMHS (Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services). The couple were told Joseph needed ‘dyadic developmental psychotherapy’, a specialist treatment for children who have been hurt or neglected in their early years, which would require both Naomi and Martin to attend weekly sessions.
This proved very difficult for Martin. As the family breadwinner, who now works in finance, he was unable to take time off work in the middle of the day. Though evening sessions were available, the couple’s request for these was ignored. Social workers were unsympathetic, and highly critical of him in reports.
Both children developed serious mental health problems, and would regularly self-harm, shutting themselves in the bathroom. At their wits’ end, the couple took the lock off the bathroom door – only to be told by social workers to replace it to ‘protect the children’s privacy’.
‘I was terrified one of them might die and begged social workers to get them urgent appointments with CAMHS, which still felt like our only hope, yet there seemed to be no urgency back then – though I understand they’ve had referrals now, after the adoption has broken down,’ recalls Naomi.
Everything came to a head at the beginning of the year when Tamsin had gone missing. Martin was out with Joseph in the car, scouring the streets, when he had what can only be described as a nervous breakdown. He later described how he’d started driving very quickly, feeling like he wanted to die.
‘Martin was full of remorse,’ says Naomi. ‘But we realised we were both so broken we could no longer cope and asked that the children be taken back into care.’
Initially the siblings were taken into care under a Section 20 order, a voluntary agreement between the adoptive parents and the local authority for them to provide temporary care, but now have a ‘full care order’, which means they will remain in local authority homes until they are 18.
The couple still see the children – last week Naomi met Tamsin to go shopping and took Joseph for tea and cake. On another occasion, Martin took Joseph to play pool. The last time the children visited the family home, for Sunday lunch, they stole £100 from a safe. ‘We miss them and still consider them our children,’ says Naomi.
‘And we don’t put any of the blame for what’s happened on them. They’ve developed a fight or flight response as a result of their early trauma and haven’t had the professional support they need. However, as much as we still love them both, it’s a relief they don’t live with us any more.’
One explanation for the rise in cases of children having to leave their adoptive home is the effects of widespread cuts in funding to local authorities and CAMHS, says Alison Woodhead, of Adoption UK. ‘Adopters often feel quite abandoned, not knowing what they’re entitled to or what support is out there.’
This was certainly the case for Stephan, a little boy who, together with his older sister Juliet, was adopted by Sophie Greenwood and her wife, Susie, a schoolteacher, in 2012, when they were aged two and three.
Both children were malnourished, covered in sores and fleas and so terrified of water that Sophie and Susie were unable to bath them, unless they climbed in too.
While Juliet developed normally, Stephan had abnormal brain development that could have been caused by exposure to toxins in the womb, as well as suspected foetal alcohol syndrome. He was diagnosed with autism, ADHD and oppositional defiant disorder (ODD).
‘We wanted them to stay together, so we could all be a forever family,’ says Sophie. ‘However, we had no idea what a fight we had on our hands to get our son the support he needed.’ As a toddler, he was easy to pick up and distract, but as he grew bigger he grew increasingly violent – biting and kicking his parents and his sister.
Warned not to physically restrain him, Susie and Sophie would hold a kickboxing pad in front of them to soften the blows.
Eventually, when he was eight, they couldn’t cope any more.
‘A therapist, assigned by the local authority, agreed that our son needed a specialist residential school, but said the only way we’d secure one was to report any significant physically aggressive incidents to the council and the police, so there was a log.
‘We did this, and the local authority pushed back, placing both children on the child protection register under suspicion of ’emotional abuse’.’
Stephan moved to the residential school aged ten, leaving Juliet at home. In theory, this meant Susie was able to return to work as a teacher. However, she was now on record as being the mother of children ‘at risk’.
‘The fight for support and the shame just broke her,’ says Sophie. ‘She was so tired and constantly ruminating over the injustice of it all.’
One evening, in late 2022, Susie took her own life.
Sophie sobs as she recalls breaking the terrible news to their children — Susie’s death heaping further trauma on top of what they had already endured.
Juliet, 15, is developing normally, while Stephan still comes home regularly – but remains prone to lashing out. Although she cannot bear to imagine her life without her two children, Sophie admits that, had she and Susie known what lay ahead, they would have been unlikely to proceed with adoption.
Adoption specialist solicitor Nigel Priestley says the legal firm where he is a senior partner, Ridley & Hall in Yorkshire, is contacted by about 150 adoptive families in crisis a year.
‘Long gone are the days when most babies adopted came from teenagers, in mother and baby homes,’ says Nigel. ‘We have a whole host of children coming through who carry significant issues with them. Specialist support for these children costs local authorities a fortune and, over the last ten years, the services that provide support have been cut to the bone.’
Alison from Adoption UK stresses that this lack of funding is the issue, and that the devastating impact of adoption breakdown on the child should not be forgotten. ‘When adopted children and young people leave the adoptive family home prematurely it is devastating for all concerned, particularly the young person.
‘It’s almost always because they are let down – by adoption services, by mental health services and by the education system. Most adoptive families describe a constant battle to get the support their children and young people need. When children and young people do leave their adoptive family home prematurely, many return there. And many adopters with children and young people living away from home are still intimately involved in their lives and their care.’
As one mother, whose marriage didn’t survive after she and her husband adopted three traumatised, and later violent, siblings who had suffered terrible neglect and abuse, says: ‘I don’t blame the boys for how they behave – if I’d had their start in life, I’d no doubt struggle to control my emotions too. I blame the system for not giving them the help they needed. There should have been ongoing support in place from the get-go.’
Hundreds of devastated parents up and down the country, whose adoptions have been similarly disrupted, agree wholeheartedly.
- For support, visit the PATCH website at ourpatch.org.uk
- Names of children and parents have been changed.
Uncertainty for families as China ends foreign adoptions
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crmwrpe3m3do
Uncertainty for families as China ends foreign adoptions
Nathan Williams
BBC News
- Published6 September 2024
China has announced that it is ending the practice of allowing children to be adopted overseas, bringing uncertainty to families currently going through the process.
A spokeswoman said that the rule change was in line with the spirit of international agreements.
At least 150,000 Chinese children have been adopted abroad in the last three decades.
More than 82,000 have gone to the US, a greater number than anywhere else in the world.
At a daily briefing Thursday, foreign ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning said in the future Beijing would only allow foreign nationals who are relatives to adopt Chinese children.
She did not explain the reason for the decision, other than saying it was in line with international agreements.
Ms Mao thanked families “for their desire and love in adopting children from China”.
The ban on foreign adoptions has created uncertainty for hundreds of families in the US currently going through the process of adopting children from China.
In a call with US diplomats in China, Beijing said it would “not continue to process cases at any stage” other than those cases covered by an exception clause. This position was confirmed by spokeswoman Ms Mao.
Washington is seeking clarification from China’s civic ministry.
China’s controversial one-child policy, introduced in 1979 when the country was worried about a surging population, forced many families to abandon their children.
Families that violated the rules were fined and, in some cases, lost jobs. In a culture that historically favours boys over girls, it often meant that female babies were given up.
International adoption was formalised in the 1990s, and since then tens of thousands of children have been adopted, with about half going to parents in the US – including celebrities like Meg Ryan and Woody Allen.
However, the international adoption programme has at various times come under criticism. In 2013, Chinese police rescued 92 abducted children and arrested suspected members of a trafficking network.
Critics at the time pointed to China’s one-child policy and adoption laws, which they said had created a thriving underground market for buying children.
A number of countries have expressed concerns about international adoptions.
Denmark has closed its only overseas adoption agency, over concerns about fabricated documents. The Netherlands has also said it will no longer allow its citizens to adopt children from abroad.
But Beijing has also altered the way it views children. In stark contrast to the position taken by officials at end of the 1970s, the country’s leaders now worry there are not enough babies being born to sustain the population.
In 2016 China scrapped the one-child policy and in 2021 Beijing formally revised its laws to allow married couples to have up to three children.
In recent years, the Chinese government also offered tax breaks and better maternal healthcare, among other incentives, in an attempt to reverse, or at least slow, the falling birth rate.
But these polices have not lead to a sustained increase in births, and in 2023 the country’s total population fell for the first time in 60 years.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-68629466
Couple adopted vulnerable children to abuse
- Published
22 March
Abuse
poisoned generations of a family after children’s allegations and
sexualised behaviour were not acted upon, a report has revealed.
The
abuse began with Couple A in Gloucestershire, who specifically asked to
adopt an “emotionally disturbed” child – so they could assault them.
The couple, eventually jailed in 2018, went on to adopt four siblings, beginning a cycle of sexual abuse that lasted for years.
The report said agencies “fell short”.
If you have been affected by any of the issues raised in this article, help and advice can be found on the BBC Action Line
Couple
A, who cannot be named for legal reasons, adopted the four young
siblings, who had been abused by their birth parents, in the 1990s.
Police
describe Couple A as “wealthy” and “people you wouldn’t suspect”, with
the woman “a pillar of the community and a church-goer with a very
successful job”.
An
adoption form written by a social worker in the area they had been
living at the time outside of Gloucestershire shows they asked for a
child who was “emotionally disturbed”.
Gloucestershire
Constabulary’s Det Sgt Grace Craddock, who led the police
investigation, said they “sought out children that were traumatised”.
“I believe it was so they could have access to children who wouldn’t be believed if they were to talk out,” she said.
Couple A were jailed for a total of 23 years between them for abusing two of their adopted children.
But
one of the other siblings, along with her husband, later abused two of
their own children. In 2023, Couple B were jailed for a total of 17
years.
Det Sgt Grace Craddock said the mother in Couple A “pulled the wool over the eyes of every professional that became involved”
Det
Sgt Craddock said the dominating factor over the entire family was the
mother of Couple A, who she described as “one of the most manipulative
people I have ever met”.
The mother sat in on meetings with social services and schools, making sure nothing was said that could implicate them.
“It’s
clear from the material that we’ve reviewed in the last seven years
that she pulled the wool over the eyes of every professional that became
involved,” Det Sgt Craddock said.
“There
were certain points, over the years, social care would get involved,
they’d look over allegations but she was always considered the safe
factor and that allowed her access to the children.”
Police said the victims of the family were undergoing therapy and “living with trauma every day”.
“It’s taken years for them to feel ready to talk about what’s happened,” Det Sgt Craddock said.
“Going through a court case for any child is extremely difficult.
“They’ve
got closure thankfully but those offences have happened to them and
they have to process that going into adulthood. We don’t just finish the
investigation and close that door, the support is ongoing.”
‘More and more evidence’
In 2010, Gloucestershire Constabulary did not prosecute Couple A after one of the children said she had been abused.
The
CPS was not consulted and no legal advice was taken, despite evidence
the father had been downloading indecent images of children, for which
he was later cautioned.
When Couple B’s children started going to primary school, teachers noticed a pattern of worrying behaviour.
“Pete”,
a member of staff, told the BBC that the school began to notice “more
and more evidence of quite significant sexualised behaviour” as each
sibling joined.
Despite
referrals to children’s services, and concerns also shown from staff in
probation, social services and at a children’s centre, Pete and his
colleagues felt they were pushed back by the local authority.
“Pete” told BBC reporter Steve Knibbs, pictured here, he was pleased the children finally had justice
“It
was very much ‘this will not get past legal’ and I found that
frustrating because I said ‘I’m not here to try and get a legal outcome
I’m here to try and get these children protected’,” Pete said.
“And
it would be ‘well, they haven’t said anything’ and I would go on saying
‘they don’t have to have said anything’ – their behaviour was screaming
at us and that wasn’t being taken account of.
“That
was quite disturbing because these children would have been coached,
threatened, you know, and scripted ‘if you’re asked this, this is what
you say’.”
‘Apologise unreservedly’
A report by Gloucestershire Safeguarding Partnership was published on Friday, external
into the background of the failings that led to the creation of
Operation Acorne, an investigation involving a number of local agencies
in July 2017.
Eleven
children connected to four families were taken into police protection
and local authority care. Two other families had convictions for
neglect, but the victims of Couples A and B finally saw their abusers
brought to justice and jailed.
The
failings in the system were against a backdrop of a deterioration in
children’s services in Gloucestershire revealed in 2017.
In June of that year, the same month that Operation Acorne was set up, Ofsted announced it had found “serious and widespread failures” in children’s services in Gloucestershire.
It
said that “too many children were being left in situations at risk of
significant harm for too long” because dangers were not recognised.
The
county council’s director of children’s services, Ann James, apologised
“unreservedly” for the authority’s “not joined up or adequate” initial
response.
“Whilst these
circumstances are thankfully very rare, our focus during the years
since this abuse was uncovered has been to, along with our partners, act
in response to mistakes that were made and to strengthen how we work
together to effectively safeguard children in the county,” she said.
“Although
these events occurred up to 15 years ago, the findings and the
recommendations serve as a reminder to us all that we must all remain
vigilant and unwavering in our protection of children.”
Earlier this week the council apologised over the failures which led to a child being abused by her carer.
Police said they were “sorry for the consequences of not taking action at an earlier stage” (stock image)
The
report highlighted that in 2016 police did not look into the
allegations of sexualised behaviour because the children involved were
under the age of criminal responsibility.
It
said: “This deflected the professional child protection network from a
more fundamental question: ‘Where had the children involved learnt this
behaviour?’.”
Addressing
the missed opportunity to prosecute Couple A, Assistant Chief Constable
Arman Mathieson said Gloucestershire police was “sorry for the
consequences of not taking action at an earlier stage”.
“In
relation to the police failing identified in the report, specifically
that we did not refer the allegations made by a victim in 2009 to the
Crown Prosecution Service, this was not the right decision and I have
apologised to those involved,” he said.
“While
this decision was made in good faith by the investigating officer,
based on a perception the evidential threshold had not been met, this is
not what we do now.
“When
the case was referred again in 2017, it was taken forward with the
utmost professionalism via a multi-agency investigation spanning over
six years, resulting in extensive safeguarding and significant
convictions that totalled over 40 years.
“The
report’s findings have been embedded within our organisations and we
continue to work closely together, every day, to safeguard children and
bring offenders to justice.”
Det
Sgt Craddock added: “We’re unable to name the parents involved for
legal reasons and to protect the victims but this offending is very
distinct and if anyone’s got concerns that it’s familiar or they think
that they might have been involved in anything of this nature then have
the confidence to come forward and speak to police.”
Delay and frustration in adoption law’s first year
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp3dx01v8x8o
Delay and frustration in adoption law’s first year
At a glance
- More than 10,000 requests for adoptees’ birth records have been submitted during the first year of a new Irish law
- The authorities struggled to meet demand and missed legal deadlines
- A total of 5,500 requests were made to use a new family tracing service
- More than half (53%) of tracing requests are yet to be allocated to staff
Eimear Flanagan
BBC News NI
- Published3 October 2023
An Irish law that gave adopted people the right to access their birth records has led to more than 10,000 applications during its first year of operation.
The Birth Information and Tracing Act, external was designed to end much of the secrecy embedded in Ireland’s 70-year-old adoption system.
But for many adoptees waiting decades for answers about their early lives, the new procedures meant delays and frustration.
The legislation created a new family tracing service and throughout the year 5,500 requests to find relatives were submitted.
However, due to the complexity of some searches, 53% of tracing requests are yet to be allocated to staff.
“I am relying on a system that is working at a snail’s pace,” said Linda Southern, who is searching for her birth parents.
The 48-year-old Dubliner was adopted in 1975 at six weeks of age.
She spent her first 47 years not knowing her birth name nor the names of her mother and father.
That is because until 3 October 2022, Irish adoptees had no automatic right to see their own birth certificates, nor to know their biological parents’ identities.
The new law was supposed to give adoptees access to birth records within 30 days, or 90 days in complex cases.
Two organisations tasked with releasing records struggled to handle an early surge of applications.
The Adoption Authority of Ireland (AAI) and child and family agency Tusla both missed statutory deadlines.
“The initial surge led to wait times which would be frustrating and which we regret,” said AAI interim chief executive Colm O’Leary.
“When you’re starting off a process and you’re learning that records are held across various sources, it takes time to become familiar with all of the record types,” he explained.
A Tusla spokeswoman said “a significant portion of the applications are classified as complex which means they require more time”.
But adoptees argue authorities should have been better prepared.
“Surely, state bodies would have had a basic idea of the number of adoptees who would want to at least get their birth information,” said Ms Southern.
After initial delays, she received her own documents which – for the first time – revealed her original name and parents’ names.
However, she still needs help finding her biological family and spent the past year waiting for news.
“I don’t know if they will ever trace my birth mother or not.
“If they can’t, I should be told,” she said.
“They should have presumed the majority would want to trace – better to presume that too many people would wish to trace birth families than too few.”
‘Belfast baby’
Loraine Jackson had hoped her birth files might shed some light on her cross-border adoption.
She grew up in Dublin, with barely any information about her birth.
But in her early 40s, she found out she was actually a native of the United Kingdom, having been born to a single mother in Belfast in 1948.
Her parents died years before she could trace them.
When she spoke to BBC News NI last year, she expressed hope her files might reveal how or why she was taken across the border for adoption.
After months of waiting, a “fat package” arrived in the post which included an unredacted version of her adoption agreement.
For the first time, she saw her relatives’ signatures and finally found out who authorised her adoption.
“My birth mother had not been present at the signing. Her sister signed for her,” Ms Jackson explained.
She also expected her files would contain information about the standard of care she received in Bethany children’s home in Dublin.
But apart from a photocopy of her name in Bethany’s admission book, she was disappointed.
“The information just didn’t seem to be there. Whether records were not kept as well in those days, I don’t know.”
Although left with many unanswered questions, her maternal aunt’s role in her adoption was new information to her.
“It was definitely worthwhile doing, and I’d advise anyone who hasn’t applied yet to go for it.”
AAI staff received a wide range of feedback from adoptees about their birth files – from delight to disappointment to disbelief.
“A lot of people have said: ‘Is that it? Is there nothing else?'” Mr O’Leary said.
He acknowledged some adoptees were dismayed to learn that nothing more exists on file than details they already knew.
Others have received heavily censored documents.
“Sometimes the authority gets records that are already redacted prior to us getting them… we cannot unredact it,” Mr O’Leary explained.
He also said AAI staff can apply redactions themselves, in cases where personal information refers to a third party.
However, he added applicants can request a review if they believe files were “inappropriately redacted”.
The interim chief executive acknowledged the AAI’s 12 social workers have “significant” tracing workloads.
But he said tracing “is not a linear process” and adoptees often pause the search themselves to digest new information.
“You’re dealing with a very emotive situation,” Mr O’Leary said.
“People may initiate a trace, thinking that their birth mother would want to hear from them, and they have to take on board that the birth mother does not want contact.”
But the new law produced positive outcomes too – the AAI’s tracing service has facilitated 44 family reunions.
“Sometimes I’ll go to the kitchen and I’ll see a social worker taking out the fancy crockery and making tea” Mr O’Leary said.
“They’re bringing it into a room where a family is being reunited.”
He added that when staff help connect families “there is a sense of success, and of delivering on the legislation”.
The AAI’s backlog of birth record applications is almost cleared and by last week, just 56 were outstanding.
Tusla has a much larger backlog which it expects to clear by June 2024.
It said from1 September, all new applications are being processed “within statutory timelines”.
If you are affected by the issues raised in this story, help and support can be found at BBC Action Line.
Bessborough mother and baby home should have been bought by the State, Tánaiste says
Bessborough mother and baby home should have been bought by the State, Tánaiste says
ireland
20/09/2024 | 14:48 PM
Olivia Kelleher
Tánaiste Micheál Martin has indicated that he has always been of the view that the State should have purchased Bessborough, the former mother and baby home in Cork, for conversion into a memorial or amenity site.
This week a decision made by Cork City Council to refuse planning permission for a proposed 92 unit residential development at Bessborough in Blackrock in the city was upheld by An Bord Pleanála.
The planning authority backed the decision of the local authority because of the historical landscape and potential human remains at the grounds.
Speaking in Cork, Mr Martin said that options should be explored in relation to the use of the site.
“I was always of a view that the local authority with the State should have purchased that site and have a proper memorialisation but also see if we could do things on a planned basis. It is a beautiful area. It can potentially be a very strong amenity area for the area as well, but that was always my view on it.
“I felt at the time that maybe the local authority should have got involved earlier and pre-empted what happened and bought it because there are medical facilities, or HSE facilities on the site,” he said.
“There are a variety of facilities on the site, and it is a natural area and a green area as well, and we need to look at that as well.”
Meanwhile, Bessborough became notorious for the cruelty and neglect of mothers and their babies.
Of the more than 900 babies who died at Bessborough or in Cork hospitals having been transferred from the mother and baby home over the course of seven decades, less than 70 have known burial sites.
Survivors of the home have broadly welcomed the decision by An Bord Pleanála to deny planning for building on the site.
Carmel, whose mother gave birth to a boy who died in Bessborough, told Red FM News of her delight at the decision by the planning authority.
“I’m delighted it is being refused. All the grounds potentially have burials in them. It is not just one particular area.
There hasn’t been an investigation to establish whether there is a mass grave or where the children are but what we do know is that there is witnesses that have witnessed burials take place.”
Bessborough survivor: ‘The shame belongs with them’
Bessborough survivor: ‘The shame belongs with them’
Sun, 30 May, 2021 – 06:35
Maresa Fagan
Survivors of mother and baby homes and other State institutions have been let down and only an international investigation can shed light on the “human rights violations” of the past, according to Bessborough survivor Terri Harrison. The 66-year-old Dublin campaigner is one of 13 women from Ireland and the North who have requested that the International Criminal Court (ICC) investigate the ‘violent legacy’ of mother and baby homes, Bessborough survivor: ‘The shame belongs with them’e laundries, and industrial schools. The recent ICC request made by Belfast-based legal firm KRW Law is seeking a preliminary examination into whether the institutional abuse exposed in recent reports and inquiries amounted to “crimes against humanity”. Earlier this year, the Mother and Baby Home Commission of Investigation found that around 56,000 unmarried mothers and 57,000 children passed through 18 State-funded and church-run institutions examined and that around 9,000 babies and children died. The legacy of the institutions, which operated for more than seven decades, has left deep scars across society, from the mothers whose babies were taken away to the children who were adopted or who died and were buried in pits. The commission findings were met with widespread criticism from survivors and have led to several legal challenges against the State. For Terri, the final report was a “whitewash” as it failed to acknowledge or atone for the abduction and forced disappearances of thousands of young girls and women pregnant out of wedlock, their “stolen” babies, or for the children who died. “There wasn’t a whisper of humanity in the report,” Terri says, adding that it failed to address the issue of neglect and starvation or the 922 unaccounted for babies in the Bessborough facility in Cork.
‘Pregnant from Ireland’
Terri is one of more than 2,500 PFIs Irish women or girls who were officially recorded as ‘pregnant from Ireland’ and brought back from the UK to a mother and baby home. It was 1973 when the Crusade and Rescue Society, an English-based Catholic charity, “abducted” the expectant 18-year-old from London and a nun and priest escorted her by car to the airport and onwards to the Bessborough mother and baby home in Cork. It was a day forever etched in Terri’s mind. “I will never forget the door and the click of the door when it closed. I was just left there in the hallway. I have never felt as alone in my life as I did in that moment,” she says.
“When I stood in that hallway I lost me. I was given a house number and house name and was shown to a bed and locker. I just sat there and cried and cried and said to myself ‘this is the bowels of hell’.”
While Terri managed to escape from Bessborough and return to Dublin, she was tracked down and sent to St Patrick’s mother and baby home on the Navan Rd, where she gave birth to a baby boy, Niall, who was later “taken” for adoption. There was a cry, a primal scream, that you would hear regularly when a mother discovered that their baby was gone. “It was wrenching, like a cry from an animal,” she says.
Forty-eight years on, the pain and sense of loss remains, but Terri continues to hold out hope that she may someday reconnect with Niall, who she describes as her “shadow child”. “No matter where we were or what we were doing I always pictured him at the age he should be. I visualised him everywhere and at Christmas time there was always a present under the tree for him,” she says.
Terri is only too aware that her experience is not unique and last year got involved in setting up a support group, Society of Survivors, to enable women to share their experiences.
Carrying the secrets
Some women, she says, still carry the loss, silence, shame, and secrets today: “I know women in their eighties to this day who have not told anyone, including their husbands or families.”
Survivors, she explains, have endured ‘living bereavement’ even though there was no loss of life. “No death occurred but each stage of your life presents a new bereavement that amplifies all those years of loss. The loss of freedom and liberty, the loss of motherhood, the loss of the right to breastfeed your own child, it just goes on and on and it never stops until you die.”
Women and girls, some as young as 12, were “dehumanised” in the institutions, which could not be called a home, Terri says: “We weren’t residents. We were interned. We were incarcerated. We were recorded by our offence. I was down as my first offence. The only difference is we didn’t get a court of law or a trial to find us guilty of anything.”
An independent international investigation, she believes, is the only way to uncover the true scale of the “human rights violations” and “inhumane” treatment that occurred. “There is a huge correlation between us and those who were incarcerated in war camps. You were 100% at the mercy of your captives. You could do nothing without their approval,” she says.
Any attempts to attribute what happened to the social norms of the time was a “cop-out”, Terri says, adding that it amounted to human trafficking, involving several sectors of the State and society, and that women and young girls were denied access to information and their rights, such as the right to see their child under the 1952 Adoption Act. “Who gave anybody the right to lock me away and take my child? Nobody will answer that,” she says.
The long-time campaigner, who has penned a play, No More Secrets, No More Lies, based on her own experiences, says the Government needs to acknowledge what happened and support survivors. An enhanced medical card, she says, does not compare to the Health Amendment Act (HAA) card provided to victims of the contaminated blood products scandal, which is what survivors are looking for as a “gesture of kindness”. Any shame around these institutions today, Terri adds, lies firmly with the State and Government, and not survivors. “We are just a pain in their side or a toothache they want to get rid of. They don’t know what to do with us because we’re an embarrassment; we’re bringing embarrassment to the whole culture of this country,” Terri says.
“But I’ll keep saying this until I die; I like the word shame now because I know exactly where it belongs; the shame belongs with them.”
Society of Survivors support line: 085 8069925/26
Adoption and Trauma: Risks, Recovery, and the Lived Experience of Adoption
Published in final edited form as:
Child Abuse Negl. 2022 Aug; 130(Pt 2): 105309.
Published online 2021 Sep 17. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2021.105309
PMCID: PMC8926933
NIHMSID: NIHMS1741349
PMID: 34544593
Adoption and Trauma: Risks, Recovery, and the Lived Experience of Adoption
David Brodzinsky,* Megan Gunnar, and Jesus Palacios
Author information Copyright and License information PMC Disclaimer
The publisher’s final edited version of this article is available at Child Abuse Negl
Go to:
Abstract
Background:
Although a very heterogeneous group, adopted persons may present developmental and mental health problems of varying severity. Pre-placement adversity and trauma have often been linked to these problems. It has been also suggested that adoption itself is a psychological trauma, predisposing the individual to emotional difficulties.
Objectives:
This article examines the links between early adversity, trauma, and adoption. We begin by defining trauma and then describe the way in which pre-placement adversity can undermine neurobehavioral and interpersonal functioning, increasing the risk for long-term psychological difficulties. Next, we examine children’s recovery when placed in a stable adoptive home. Finally, we explore adoption as a lived experience, highlighting contextual and developmental factors that facilitate the person’s positive or negative attributions about being adopted, leading to varying patterns of emotional adjustment.
Conclusions:
Although pre-placement adversity increases adopted individuals’ risk for maladjustment, the human brain and behavior are malleable, and placement in a nurturing adoptive home often facilitates recovery from early adversity, with significant heterogeneity in the extent of recovery within and across domains of functioning. While there is no evidence that early adoption is a trauma for the individual, ongoing negative life circumstances, attachment difficulties, and developmentally-mediated attributions about adoption can undermine the person’s self-esteem, identity, relationships, and sense of well-being. Conclusions and suggestions for future research are offered.
Keywords: adoption, trauma, early life adversity, neuroplasticity, developmental recovery, adoption as a lived experience
There is a long history linking adoption, adversity, and trauma, one that recently has generated considerable debate, as noted in the introduction to the special issue of the journal. Modern adoption emerged as a child welfare practice in most Western countries in the first half of the 20th century as a societal intervention for the plight of children whose parents were unable to provide proper care for them. Whether placed at birth or later in childhood, the intended goal of adoption was to facilitate a permanent and nurturing family in which children’s physical, emotional, relational, and educational needs could be met. In many cases, adoption was also viewed as a chance for children to heal from adverse, and, at times traumatic, experiences encountered prior to placement. This theme – adoption as a child-focused intervention – has been at the heart of child welfare policy and practice ever since (Palacios et al., 2019).
A quite different perspective regarding adoption, however, emerged in the middle of the 20th century and has continued to the present. Researchers reported that adopted individuals are overrepresented in mental health settings and manifest higher levels of adjustment problems compared to their non-adopted peers (Askeland, et al., 2017; Holmgren, et al., 2020; Juffer & van IJzendoorn, 2005). In the past, most researchers attributed greater developmental and mental health risks for adopted individuals primarily to the vulnerabilities and adversities they experienced prior to adoption (e.g., genetics, prenatal complications, neglect, abuse, multiple foster care placements, orphanage life). More recently, the role of post-adoption family-based experiences and other contextual factors, as well as reports on the lived experiences of being adopted by adolescents and adults, have added to our understanding of the connection between adoption and psychological adjustment, including, for some, the experience of adoption as an emotional trauma.
Thus, two general themes have linked adoption, adversity, and trauma historically, one viewing adoption as a societal intervention for children in need of permanency, as well as a means by which some children are provided an opportunity to recover from previous life adversities, and a second viewing adoption as a developmental risk factor in the life of the person. In this article we explore both themes to clarify the nature of the connections between adoption, adversity, and trauma. We begin by examining how pre-placement adversity, especially when it occurs early in life when the brain is very plastic and strongly shaped by experience, can impact subsequent attachment, mental health, and neurobehavioral development, compromising executive functions, self-regulation, memory, reward sensitivity, and stress regulation, among other areas of functioning (Gunnar & Reid, 2019). In turn, these competencies, when diminished, can make it challenging for some adoptees to negotiate the lived experiences of their adoption. Next, we explore adoption as a “protective factor”, with an emphasis on its effectiveness in meeting the needs of vulnerable children, especially those who are recovering from the consequences of previous life adversity. In the final section, we address adoption as a “lived experience”, examining contextual and developmental factors that impact psychological well-being and the integration of adoption into the developing self-system.
Before continuing, we must acknowledge that there is no singular “adoption experience.” Children enter their new families through different pathways, are adopted at different ages, have different pre-placement experiences, and grow up in different types of families. In short, being adopted is a heterogenous life experience, with some children more likely than others to encounter early adversity and trauma, and/or have more difficulty integrating their adoption into a healthy and secure sense of self.
Defining Trauma
Given the theme of the special issue – adoption and trauma – it is important that we define what we mean by trauma. Although trauma has been defined in many ways in the past, the one offered by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA; 2014) is particularly useful because it integrates previously identified components of the trauma experience and has been widely accepted by trauma-informed researchers and practitioners in the field of mental health. Specifically, SAMHSA suggests that trauma involves “an event, series of events, or set of circumstances that is experienced by an individual as physically or psychologically harmful or life threatening and that has lasting adverse effects on the individual’s functioning and mental, physical, social, emotional or spiritual well-being (p. 7)”. In addition, it is recognized that in some cases adverse effects may occur immediately after experiencing a specific event, whereas in other cases there may be delayed onset. In relation to adoption, we also emphasize the long-term impact of life adversities on the developing person, especially those involving interpersonal traumas and dysregulations to the emotional, relational, and self-systems. The latter perspective is at the core of Developmental Trauma Disorder (DTD) which has been proposed, but not yet accepted, for incorporation in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual by the National Child Traumatic Stress DSM-V Taskforce (see van der Kolk & d’Andrea, 2010). These types of adverse life experiences are often cumulative and all too common in the developing years of adopted children, especially those placed after experiences of maltreatment and/or institutionalization, with long-term negative consequences for their well-being. Moreover, the adverse impact of being adopted often has delayed onset, linked to the person’s changing attributions about adoption-related experiences that occur with development. To highlight the latter point, in the third section of this article we explore how adoption as a lived experience is interpreted by individuals as they mature cognitively and socially and seek to integrate this personal and family experience into their identity, self-esteem, and relationships.
Go to:
Pre-Adoption Adversities and Post-Adoption Functioning
To address questions about how prior experiences impact post-adoption functioning, we can turn to studies of two groups of children: children adopted from institutional settings and children adopted from foster care after initial neglectful or abusive experiences. The first group of children typically experience marked deprivation prior to adoption and in recent decades have been studied extensively, focusing not only on cognitive and socioemotional development, but also using the tools of neuroscience to understand how their experiences have shaped them from the molecular to the neural level (see review, Gunnar & Reid, 2019). Because foster care is one of the pathways to adoption, the studies of children in foster care or from other circumstances involving neglect and abuse, are also relevant. Here there are important research and intervention programs that have examined how pre-adoption experiences (e.g., maltreatment, number of placements) affect post-fostering and/or post-adoption social, cognitive, and physiological functioning. Children adopted from institutions are believed to have primarily experienced neglect and deprivation. Children removed from their families and placed in foster care prior to adoption frequently have experienced a combination of neglect and threatening life circumstances (see Sheridan and McLaughlin, 2014).
Neglect and abuse are violations of species-typical experiences that support healthy development. Humans are born very motorically immature, with limited visual acuity and brains that have not yet formed the circuits to integrate vision, touch, sound, and motor activity. Human interaction is what provides the context for the developing brain, with responsive care allowing the infant to experience the type of response-contingent stimulation upon which many of the developing neural circuits depend (Tottenham, 2020) . When this responsive stimulation is absent, degraded or replaced by harsh, threatening responses from caregivers for a sufficient duration of early development, functioning is adversely impacted. Because skills beget skills, alterations in the early architecture of the developing brain affect the skills which the child brings to the table, influencing how the world is perceived, processed, and responded to, which in turn affects later developing circuits and skills (Nelson et al., 2020).
Effects Related to Age at Adoption
Whether adoption is a disruption in a child’s life depends, in part, on the child’s age and experiences at the time of adoption. As mammals, we have evolved to respond well to the marked disruption of being born. Likewise, in the first few months of life there is little evidence that a shift in caregiving arrangements produces detectable adverse effects later in development. Perhaps the best evidence of this comes from studies of children adopted from conditions of deprivation in institutions in the first few months of life. Across a large range of measures, cognitive, social, emotional and physiological, no differences were noted between those children and children born and raised in their birth families (see review, Gunnar & Reid, 2019). This is not to say that these children never have to come to terms with what it means to be adopted, as we discuss later, just that these later issues are not due to trauma at the time of adoption when it happens in the first few months of life.
Language is one area that is strongly affected by age-at-adoption as revealed most clearly in the Bucharest Early Intervention Project (BEIP). Children randomly assigned to removal from institutional care and placement in families during the period of rapid language learning (e.g., by 15 months) scored similarly to community controls on school-age language outcomes at age 8 years (Windsor et al, 2012). Children placed by 15 months scored higher on measures such as nonword repetition and word identification than did children placed later. Children placed beyond 25 months continued to show deficits in school-age language outcomes. Thus, placement in a language rich environment during sensitive periods for language development appears to be predictive of whether children will show impairments in language skills or not.
Age at adoption is also critical for children adopted after they are old enough to organize their security seeking behavior around one or a few people, with the likelihood of successfully organizing a secure attachment in the first months post-placement decreasing with age from 5 to 28 months in children removed from their families and placed in foster care (Stovall & Dozier, 2000). Actually, the question of whether the child can form a secure relationship with adoptive parents takes two forms in relation to pre-adoption experiences. If children have had many different caregivers within any given day or week, as in institutional care, it is likely that they have never fully formed an attachment relationship with anyone (see Zeanah et al., 2005). Children who have not had a chance to form an attachment during the first years of life, do rapidly form discriminating attachments once given an opportunity and these attachments appear most often to be secure (Carlson et al., 2014). On the other hand, for children who have been abused by their primary caregivers preadoption and/or have experienced the forming and losing of many attachment relationships, as sometimes is the case in foster care, attachment disordered behavior can be an issue (Zeanah et al., 2004). Indeed, outcomes for children adopted from foster care in England largely reflected pre-adoption adversity, with the exception that distress at separation from foster parents was also predictive of problematic outcomes, arguing for the importance of planning for this transition (Neil et al., 2020).
A secure attachment relationship supports the development of many aspects of healthy child functioning, including executive function (EF) skills (Bernier et al., 2010). EF skills support the top-down regulation of other brain functions (Zelazo, 2020). These neurocognitive skills include inhibitory control (the capacity to inhibit habitual responses to achieve goals), working memory (the number of ideas one can hold in mind at one time), executive attention (effortful regulation of attentional focus) and cognitive flexibility (the capacity to shift from one set of rules to another as circumstances change). EF is profoundly affected by early deprivation in institutional care (van IJzendoorn et al., 2020), as well as trauma and abuse at the hands of parents or guardians (van der Bij et al., 2020; Wretham & Woolgar, 2017). These skills contribute to a wide range of competencies, including inhibiting inappropriate responses to strangers (Bruce et al., 2009), attention regulation (Crosbie et al., 2008), sharing, turn-taking (Meyer et al., 2015), emotional self-regulation, and many aspects of academic performance. Deficits in EF skills emerge early in life and are sustained for many years after removal to enriching, supportive environments (van IJzendoorn et al., 2020). Furthermore, they are transdiagnostic indicators of risks for psychopathology (Wade et al., 2020), forming a critical step in the developmental cascade that in some cases leads from neurocognitive deficits immediately post-adoption (reflecting preadoption conditions) to problems with peers and other relationships, to academic problems, and to failures to achieve the developmental tasks of adolescence and emerging adulthood, resulting in affective disorders (Golm et al., 2020).
Brain Structure and Function
The impact of early adversity on the development of EF and other cognitive functions, raises questions of how brain structure and function are impacted. Several prospective studies of early adversity have reported marked reductions in the volume of gray matter, where neural cell bodies and their dendrites are located, a part of the central nervous system involved in sensory perception and motoric responses, speech, memory, impulse control, and emotions. Both smaller total brain volumes (Mackes et al., 2020) and, controlling for total volume, reductions in particular regions (e.g., frontal cortex and hippocampus) have been reported in studies of previously institutionalized children (Hodel et al., 2015). In the BEIP study, widespread reductions in cortical thickness were noted that were not mitigated by removal from institutional care and placement in families (McLaughlin et al., 2014). Recently, the BEIP group (Stamoulis et al., 2017) reported that early deprivation not only reduced brain volume and cortical thickness, but also altered brain wiring, with children randomly assigned to removal from institutional care showing improvements in wiring compared to those remaining in institutions, although they were still different from children who were never in deprived institutional care. It is notable that some of the effects on brain development do not manifest early in life, but take time to develop, emerging by adolescence many years after adoption. Thus, in one study involving children adopted from institutions mainly in their first three years of life, reductions in hippocampal and amygdala volumes studied across development did not emerge until adolescence and were predicted by dysregulation of stress physiology evidenced many years earlier (van Tieghem et al., 2021).
While early deprivation has profound effects on brain growth, abuse and threat appear to profoundly impact the brain regions, most notably the amygdala, that process and trigger defensive responses to threat. Childhood maltreatment is associated not only with increased vigilance and reactivity to threat stimuli, but also a more reactive amygdala to threat faces and connectivity of the amygdala to other brain regions (as reviewed in Demers et al., 2018). It should be noted, though, that in the Demers et al. (2018) study, adults who were functioning adaptively did not show these neurological effects. This raises a challenging issue in research on the long-term effects of childhood adversity. Specifically, prospective studies with objective measures tend to be more highly correlated with alterations in biological functioning, sometimes termed the biological embedding of childhood adversity, while retrospective, self-reports of early adversity by adults are more strongly associated with psychopathology (Gehred et al., 2021). Thus, many of the studies of childhood maltreatment which retrospectively use self-report questionnaires likely under-estimate the neurobiological impacts of early adversity.
In sum, preadoption adversity has significant long-term impacts on post-adoption functioning, dependent on the age at adoption, the degree and nature of the adversity, and individual factors (e.g., genetics, as will be covered in the next section). Nonetheless, adoption can be a turning point in children’s lives. Adverse care conditions are replaced by family environments assessed by social service agencies as suitable in terms of parental motivation, attitudes, skills, and emotional stability, although some of these families are unable to meet their children’s needs as they had hope to (Palacios, 2020; Smith, 2014). Post-adoption recovery is real, and it is to this point that we turn next.
Go to:
Post-adoption recovery after early adverse experiences
There is tremendous heterogeneity in outcomes for children removed from adversity and adopted into families. In this section we address issues of recovery and factors in the child and in the adoption environment that enhance positive outcomes for children who have experienced early adversity and trauma.
Age at Adoption and Recovery
Age at adoption is one of the more critical factors in predicting recovery. Assuming that much of the importance of an early age at adoption is due to the role of early experiences in shaping patterns of relationships and brain architecture, this raises the question of sensitive periods. The current evidence is that there is not likely to be one critical or sensitive period that determines when recovery of function in general is impossible. This is partly because even within a given domain of functioning (e.g., language development) there are different sensitive periods for the different skills (e.g., phonology, semantics, etc.) that contribute to overall competency in that domain. Thus, across and within domains there are cascades of different sensitive periods under the influence of multiple experiential and biological factors (Nelson & Gabard-Durnam, 2020). Moreover, later developing skills can sometimes compensate for earlier developing skills that were not optimally established, although in other instances, poorly developed earlier skills can impair the development of later developing skills (Nelson & Gabard-Durnam, 2020). From this perspective, the timing of competence development in different domains is malleable and residual plasticity still enables functional modifications for children adopted beyond infancy. Notably, depending on the age and the degree of atypical input prior to adoption, recovery of some functions and/or reversal of some adaptations may require specialized interventions, as discussed below (Koss, et al., 2020; Yarger et al., 2021).
Differential Plasticity
Another critical issue in recovery is termed differential plasticity (Palacios et al., 2014). Even when a particular domain of functioning appears to be strongly affected by early adversity, it is important to note that some facets of those domains may be more plastic and responsive to improved conditions than others. Indeed, the process of recovery seems asynchronous, with some domains recovering more rapidly and more completely than others.
Recovery of physical growth is a good example of differential plasticity. One way the developing body protects itself under adverse conditions is to shift metabolic resources from physical growth to allow an energy reserve to ward off threats such as infections or periodic lack of nutrition. This is likely one reason that activation of the stress hormone system acts on the growth hormone system to slow linear growth (Gunnar & Reid, 2019). Children exposed to significant adversity early in life show a reduction of linear growth, which when it is extreme (i.e., child is below the 5th percentile in height-for-age) is termed growth stunting. Once removed from adversity and placed in supportive families, growth rebounds and soon is within ranges typical for the child’s age (Gunnar & Reid, 2019; van IJzendoorn et al., 2020). The exception to this is head size, which lags behind, but is in normal ranges by early adolescence (Johnson et al., 2018). While much of the work on psychosocial deprivation-related growth failure has been done in children adopted from institutional care, the phenomenon was originally described for children living in families who, upon removal to more supportive conditions, would begin growing without any medical treatment (Green, et al., 1984). Importantly, rapid catch-up growth in previously institutionalized children challenges the children’s iron stores, which are often compromised under conditions of early deprived care (see for review, Gunnar & Reid, 2019). Depleted iron stores during periods of rapid catch-up growth can adversely impact recovery of cognitive functions, including IQ and executive functions, and thus should be monitored.
Intelligence is another domain that shows differential plasticity. IQ is significantly impaired by early deprivation and inadequate cognitive stimulation. However, meta-analytical evidence shows that adopted children’s IQs rebound and are typically within normal ranges (average, 104) within a year or so of adoption and may be as much as 20 points higher than the IQ of peers left behind in institutional care (van IJzendoorn et al., 2005). While IQ is typically highly predictive of school performance, despite adoption resulting in normal IQs, school performance of adoptees often lags, with more adopted children developing learning difficulties (van IJzendoorn, et al., 2005), probably in connection with increased behavioral and emotional problems (Brown, et al., 2017) and some EF deficits, as discussed below.
One reason for normal IQs not translating into good school performance is likely continuing problems in EF. Yet EF is another domain that shows marked differential plasticity. While attention regulation, working memory and inhibitory control exhibit deficits long after adoption, other aspects of EF are either spared or rebound. In a study by Pollak et al. (2010), with children placed in their adoptive families after institutional care at an average age of 23 months and studied at age 9, no deficits were observed in rule acquisition and planning, despite deficits in other EF skills. Similar results were obtained in a study of post-institutionalized Russian children adopted into Spanish families (Peñarrubia et al., 2020) and in the BEIP study follow-up when children were 12 years (Bick et al., 2018). Language is also another domain that exhibits differential plasticity. Norwegian research has reported that while internationally adopted children acquire contextually based day-to-day language very rapidly and efficiently if adopted early, they experience more difficulties with the abstract language typical of the school context (Dalen, 2005).
Differential plasticity is also seen with regards to attachment. Even though, as described earlier, children appear to be capable of forming secure attachment relationships even when adopted at later ages when behavioral indices are used, attachment representations change more slowly. For example, in one study of children adopted into Spanish families from Russian institutions, representations of self and others were still negatively affected even after attachment behaviors had normalized (Román et al., 2012). Raby and Dozier (2019) have indicated that changes towards more positive representations of self and others can continue into adulthood.
Finally, and critically, aspects of brain development show highly significant differential plasticity. As noted earlier, total gray matter volume is profoundly affected by early deprivation and does not appear to improve following removal from deprivation and placement in supportive families (e.g., Hodel et al., 2015; McLaughlin et al., 2014). The volume of white matter, which consists of the sheaths of myelin (fatty substance) that wraps nerve bundles to speed transmission of signals, does recover (Sheridan et al., 2012), as do indices of white matter track integrity (Bick et al., 2015). Thus, recovery for the brain may largely consist of being better able to effectively use the neural circuits that survive early adverse care.
Plasticity Genes
There is tremendous heterogeneity in outcomes even when children have experienced similar adversities, ages at adoption, and quality of post-adoption care. Some of this heterogeneity undoubtedly reflects genetic differences among individuals. While one view of genetic differences is that some individuals are genetically more vulnerable (i.e., diathesis-stress theory), a newer argument is that there are some genes that increase sensitivity to the environment, resulting in greater impairment under adverse developmental conditions, but greater positive functioning (or recovery) when developmental conditions are supportive (differential susceptibility) (Ellis et al., 2011). A variety of genes in the dopamine (e.g., DRD4 7 repeat allele) and serotonin (e.g., serotonin transporter short allele) families and in neurotrophic factors (e.g., BDNF Val66Met polymorphism) have been proposed to be plasticity genes. All of these have been associated with impairments under adverse condition. What is now beginning to be studied is whether they also increase responsiveness to improved conditions, such as those produced by intervention and/or adoption. Examining 22 studies of randomized interventions, strong evidence was obtained for genes previously associated with externalizing behavior and depression to predict increased responsiveness to psychosocial interventions, often those targeting improved parenting (Bakermans-Kranenburg & van IJzendoorn, 2015). In one study of previously-institutionalized children examining the BDNF Val66Met polymorphism, children with one or more copies of the minor allele (e.g., MET) showed more sensitivity to age-at-adoption, performing better than other children when adopted early and worse than other children when adopted later (Gunnar et al., 2012). While such findings may help explain why some individuals recover more than others, there is also evidence in some cases that presumably more plasticity-inducing genotypes are associated with more long-term problems for children adopted from highly adverse circumstances (Kumsta et al., 2010). The differential susceptibility hypothesis reminds us of the importance of considering individual differences in biological and experiential characteristics, in developmental plasticity and in how adoption is understood and internalized by the person.
Context of Recovery
The post-adoption environment plays a critical role in recovery. Positive qualities of the family environment, such as stability, a parenting approach encouraging age-expected behaviors, parental secure state of mind regarding attachment, and warm and sensitive parent-child relationships, predict better developmental outcomes across domains (Helder, Mulder & Gunnow, 2016; Paine et al., 2020; Raby & Dozier, 2019). The benefits of a positive family environment go beyond the initial years, as reported by Gunnar et al. (2019) showing that pubertal development reopens a window of opportunity for the stress system response to be recalibrated in the presence of significant improvements in the supportiveness of the environment relative to that in infancy.
Because aspects of parenting are frequently discussed as essential to recovery, the evidence for their causal role is important to consider. There is considerable evidence that sensitive parenting plays a causal role in recovery. Thus, randomized trials designed to increase sensitive parenting in adoptive parents have been shown to increase secure attachment relationships (Juffer et al., 2005; Zajac et al., 2020) and reduce behavior problems (Yarger et al., 2021). In the BEIP study, stability in the caregiving environments following removal from institutional care and randomization to families supported recovery in many domains, including height and weight (Johnson et al., 2018) and brain electrical activity (Debnath et al., 2021). There is also increasing evidence that the parent’s attachment state of mind plays a role in whether children can develop a secure relationship with the adoptive parent, especially those adopted later in development who are at greater risk of disorganized attachment (van den Dries et al., 2009). In a longitudinal study in Italy, children adopted between 4 and 8 years were followed into adolescence (Pace et al., 2019). Adoptive mothers with more secure states of mind had children who showed more secure attachment by adolescence. It is noteworthy that adoptive parents are more likely than low-risk community parents to have secure states of mind, which may explain why so many adopted children are able to form secure relationships with their adoptive parents (Raby & Dozier, 2019).
Parenting children who have previously experienced maltreatment and who bring significant behavioral, neurological, and emotional problems to the adoptive family likely requires more than just good-enough parenting (Gunnar, 2010). Several programs have been developed to provide more 24/7 support for adoptive and/or foster parents, and specific help in understanding child problems and accessing therapeutic resources (e.g., Fisher & Stoolmiller, 2008; McCullough & Mathura, 2019). One study suggests that not only does such support help parents be less stressed by the challenging behavior of their children, but it helps with establishing or maintaining biological rhythms in previously maltreated children (Fisher & Stoolmiller, 2008). Unfortunately, all too many families who adopt previously abused and neglected children do not have access to strong and individualized support from agencies and mental health professionals, especially those with adoption clinical competence (Atkinson, 2020; Brodzinsky, 2013).
While it is true that the problems that children bring with them do not magically disappear at adoption (Gunnar & Pollak, 2007) and that the recovery process is non-linear and at times incomplete, evidence reviewed in this section indicates that adoption promotes a very significant opportunity for improvements that change the life of adopted persons with adverse early experiences. But since a thorough understanding of adversity and its impact needs to incorporate the way persons perceive and interpret the events affecting them (Smith & Pollak, 2020), we now turn our attention to the lived experience of adoption.
Go to:
Adoption as a Lived Experience
How is adoption understood and experienced by people? There is no simple answer to this question because, as noted previously, there is no singular “adoption experience.” Children enter their new families through different pathways, are adopted at different ages, and have different pre-placement experiences. Moreover, their adoption experience is impacted by the many contexts in which they live and by their developmental stage. In this section, we discuss the role of ecology and development in the meaning people attribute to their adoption experience and why, for some, being adopted is a destabilizing and, at times, traumatic experience, whereas for most it is not.
The Ecology of Adoption
Based on Bronfenbrenner’s (2005) ecological systems model of development, Palacios (2009) emphasized the importance of considering the context or ecology within which people develop to better understand the impact that being adopted has on them. This model goes beyond a focus on the characteristics of the individual person (e.g., age, gender, race) or the specific characteristics of their adoption (e.g., age at adoptive placement, type of adoption) – which characterized much of adoption research in the past – to stress consideration of the processes and dynamic interactions between the person and others, and the many contexts in their lives. The model suggests that the likelihood of adoption being internalized as a positive personal and family experience or as a destabilizing and perhaps traumatic one is tied to the interaction of multiple contextual factors, including the society or culture within which the adoption occurred (macrosystem), the proximal community and professional interventions that impact the adopted person indirectly through its influence on parents and other caregivers (exosystem), the environments in which the adoptee spends most of their time such as family, peer group, and school (microsystem), as well as the dynamic interplay among these microsystems (mesosystem) and the changes in the environments and the person over time (chronosystem). Indeed, the impact of each of these contextual factors is mediated by developmental factors, especially children’s cognitive and social-cognitive development, through which they attribute meaning to their adoption experience. Although space does not allow us to detail the impact of different types of contextual factors on the way adoption is understood and internalized by the individual, we highlight some of the more important ones.
How adoption is understood and internalized by the individual is impacted by the societal and cultural contexts in which the person is raised. Scholars of anthropology, sociology, and history have emphasized that acceptance and practice of adoption has varied over time and from culture to culture (Bowie, 2004; Leinaweaver, 2018) and is the product of social construction (Miall, 1996). Positive societal and cultural support for adoption as a way of building or expanding a family makes it more likely that adopted individuals will experience affirmative messages about their lived experience. In contrast, support for certain types of adoption can be compromised by the makeup of a society or by the attitudes and actions of certain segments of a society. For example, in societies that are relatively racially or ethnically homogenous, individuals who are adopted transracially may have more difficulty meeting and interacting with others who share their racial-ethnic and cultural origins, and may experience discrimination, bias, and more subtle microaggressions related to their race-ethnicity or adoptive status (Baden, 2016; Riley-Behringer et al., 2014), which can undermine psychological adjustment and the development of a well-integrated and healthy sense of self.
Adoption has changed dramatically from the early 20th century when it was first formalized as a professional child welfare practice to the present (Marr et al., 2020). Increasing transparency regarding children’s origins and pre-placement experiences, support for contact between adoptive and birth families, acknowledgement of the additional responsibilities of adoptive parenthood and the inherent differences between adoptive and biological family status, and the greater availability of post-adoption supports have greatly benefited adopted individuals and their families, making it easier for them to understand and cope with adoption-related challenges. These types of changes make it clear that the lived experience of being adopted is inherently tied to changes in the macrosystem and the exosystem. As just one example, consider the impact of an earlier adoption practice that counseled parents not to share adoption information with children. A recent study by Baden et al. (2019) points out how disruptive, disturbing, and potentially traumatic it can be for people to find out about their adoptive family status at older ages and/or in unsupportive ways.
There are also numerous factors that indirectly impact the lived experience of being adopted through their influence on key people with whom children spend much of their time, such as parents, extended family, teachers, and health professionals. Family life probably has the most immediate and powerful impact on how individuals internalize their adoption experience. Adopted children’s development and emotional well-being, like their non-adopted peers, is inextricably tied to the quality of parenting they receive. But raising an adopted child is typically more complex and challenging than raising a birth child (Pinderhughes & Brodzinsky, 2019). As a result, pre-placement preparation of parents by child welfare and/or mental health professionals is critical for placement stability and the well-being of all family members, as is the availability and utilization of post-adoption supports (Hartinger-Saunders, et al., 2013; Merritt & Festinger, 2013). However, the extent and quality of parent preparation and the availability of post-adoption supports vary considerably from place to place. When adoptive parents are not properly prepared by adoption professionals to understand and meet adoption-related challenges, including how adoption loss, early adversity, and trauma impact children, they will be less effective in creating a caregiving environment that fosters healthy internalization of adoption experiences by their children.
Research has also identified many family- and parent-related factors that impact adopted children’s psychological adjustment, emotional well-being, and identity (see review, Pinderhughes & Brodzinsky, 2019), often contributing to whether their lived adoption experience is an affirming and supportive one or a disruptive, destabilizing and even traumatic one. For example, parents who display greater openness in adoption communication, who are sensitive in the way they share adoption information, and who are attentive to their children’s points of view about adoption, generally foster healthier family dynamics and more positive adjustment in their children (Brodzinsky, 2005; Thomas & Scharp, 2020). This is especially true when they support a free exchange of ideas about adoption among family members and provide guidance to children in interpreting family of origin and adoption information, and support search interests (Reuter & Koerner, 2008). Adoptive parenting cognitions have also been shown to play a key role in children’s emotional well-being (see review, Lo and Cashen, 2020). Parents who readily acknowledge the inherent differences in raising adopted children compared non-adopted children usually are better prepared to support their children’s curiosity about their origins and share adoption information in an open and empathic manner, which in turn is linked to more positive adjustment in adolescence (Lo and Grotevant, 2020). Finally, in transracial, transethnic and transcultural adoptive families, children’s emotional well-being, self-esteem, and identity are directly tied to the ability of parents to provide effective racial-ethnic and cultural socialization experiences. Unfortunately, this is not always the case, with some parents adopting a “color blind” attitude and downplaying the importance of race, ethnicity, and culture in the child’s and family’s life. When this occurs, children’s racial self-esteem and identity can be jeopardized, as can their ability to cope with racial and cultural bias, discrimination, and microaggressions (see review, Pinderhughes & Brodzinsky, 2019).
Contact with birth family, whether directly (Grotevant, 2020) or indirectly through social media and other forms of distance communication (Black, et al., 2016), both of which are becoming increasingly common, undoubtedly also impacts the meaning and lived experience of being adopted. Contact is a source of information about one’s past and a means by which individuals come to understand the reasons for their adoption. It also facilitates more discussion about adoption within the adoptive family, fostering an easier integration of being adopted into one’s identity (Von Korff & Grotevant, 2011). Yet the extent of contact with birth family appears less important than the person’s satisfaction with the experience (Grotevant, et al., 2011). The latter finding suggests that not all individuals have the same need for contact and/or experience it in the same way. Furthermore, contact sometimes can pose a risk for the adopted individual, especially if it involves those who were the source of previous neglect or abuse, who provide unsupportive messages about adoption, or who are emotionally unstable (Neil & Howe, 2004).
In short, children’s lived experiences of being adopted are continuously being influenced by the dynamic interplay within and between the various contexts that are part of their everyday lives. When the messages they receive are respectful, affirmative, and supportive, healthy internalization and integration of their adoptive identity usually occurs (Grotevant et al., 2017; Grotevant & Von Korff, 2011); on the other hand, when their adoption experiences and feelings are ignored or disrespected, and when there is a lack of support by key people in their lives for exploring the meaning of being adopted, it can lead to feelings of marginalization, diminishment, fragmentation of self, and emotional destabilization. And for some, it can also feel traumatic.
Developmental Issues
The experience of being adopted varies considerably from person to person, with most people adjusting well to their family status, but others having more difficulty doing so (ter Meulen, et al., 2019). Two important factors influencing adjustment are the way adopted individuals comprehend the meaning of being adopted and the appraisals they attribute to their relinquishment and current family status, which are a function of cognitive and social-cognitive development (Brodzinsky, 2011; Brodzinsky, et al., 1984) and coping strategies (Smith & Brodzinsky, 1994, 2002), as well as the contextual factors previously described. Adoption as a lived experience incorporates not only the person’s current understanding and emotional attributions regarding their life, but also how they understand and integrate into their sense of self all that has happened to them previously, both before their adoption and since their entrance into the family. To highlight some of our points, we offer the voices of adolescent and adult adopted individuals1
Unlike some adoption clinicians (Verrier, 1993), we do not hold with the notion that separation of an infant from its birth mother constitutes a “primal wound” that is somehow encoded in the neural system in a way that predisposes the individual to “adoption trauma”. As noted previously, there is no evidence suggesting that adoptive placement in the first months of life constitutes a traumatic experience for the young infant, although separation of an older baby or child from their parents, after primary attachments are formed, would in most cases be experienced as emotionally disruptive, if not traumatic (Dozier & Rutter, 2016; Kobak et al., 2016). Children placed for adoption early in life will not understand the meaning and implications of what has happened to them for some time. Even when they are informed of their adoptive status – typically in the preschool years – and begin to learn their adoption story, they manifest little comprehension of what has happened to them (Brodzinsky, 2011; Brodzinsky et al., 1984) and do not yet have the experience to contextualize their family circumstances compared to others. In fact, Brodzinsky and his colleagues found that preschoolers often have quite positive views about being adopted and only begin to experience ambivalence and some level of distress when they become sensitized to adoption-related loss – typically in the elementary school years (Brodzinsky, et al., 1984). But even then, most adopted children experience relatively low levels of distress in relation to being adopted and to the loss of birthparents (Smith & Brodzinsky, 1994, 2002) and usually appraise their adoption experience positively (Reinoso, et al., 2013). However, with advancing age, accompanied by cognitive and social-cognitive growth, adopted youth become more aware of the complexities associated with their family status, especially as it is contextualized in relation to the family lives of others, which in turn often results in a more pervasive and profound sense of adoption-related loss (Brodzinsky, 2011). For example, recognizing that most people view adoption as “second best” compared to being born into a family, often fosters a sense of stigma for adoptees and a view of themselves as “lesser than.” In writing about this issue, French (2013) coined the term “birth privilege” to describe the hurtful and damaging societal views that prioritizes families formed through procreation, against which adopted individuals are constantly judged, by themselves and others. As Lisa [20-year-old, adopted at birth] said, “I can’t help thinking that it would be better if I had been born into my family … I just don’t feel the same way about family as I imagine my friends do … I don’t feel as confident and secure as they are … maybe it’s not about being adopted, but just I can’t help feeling that it is … it’s just not as good as growing up with your real parents”.
Differences from other family members in physical or racial features, temperament, intellectual capabilities, and/or personality traits based on non-shared genetics can also make it difficult for adopted individuals to feel as if they “fit it” or “belong” in the family, compromising their emotional security and identity. “All of my life I felt different from my parents and brothers, not just because I’m not White, but also because I’m just so different from them … they’re loud and I’m quiet … they did well in school and I struggled … although I know they love me and I love them, I’ve always felt as if I didn’t belong … and I don’t know where I belong” [Kelli, 28-year-old adopted from Korea at the age of 2 years]. And for those placed at older ages, adoption-related loss is compounded by the disruption of previous attachments to biological family members, previous foster family members, friends, teachers, coaches, therapists, and other people who played a meaningful role in their lives.
Resolving adoption-related loss is complicated for several reasons (Brodzinsky, 2011). First, it is a rather unique form of loss – i.e., adoptees constitute a small percentage of the general population in all Western societies – which often accentuates the person’s feelings of isolation and differentness. Second, it is an ambiguous loss (Boss, 1999), with birth family members most often physically absent even though psychologically present (Brodzinsky, 2014). How the loss is understood by the person can also complicate their ability to cope and their perception of themselves. If viewed as a voluntary placement, adopted individuals may question whether they had any value to the birth parents; if viewed as an involuntary removal by child welfare, they may question whether they come from individuals who have value. In either case, adoption loss can generate feelings of resentment, anger, shame, embarrassment, guilt, and/or diminished worth. And importantly, the failure of many people to understand, validate, and support the adopted person’s feelings of loss often leads to what has been called “disenfranchised grief” (Doka, 2002), an experience that can undermine the emotional well-being of the grieving individual. “When I tried to talk about my sadness about not knowing what happened to my family back in China, all I got was reassurances that my life here was undoubtedly better … not just from my [adoptive] parents, but also my [adoptive] grandparents … no one really seemed to understand that they [birth family] were constantly on my mind … I worried about them … were they still alive … what was their lives like … did they think about me … were they sad about not having me in their lives … when my [adoptive] grandfather died, we all grieved together and that felt good … but no one understands my worry and grief about my birth family” [Lisa, 31-year-old woman adopted from China at 2 years of age].
Although there is little empirical evidence suggesting that adoption per se is traumatic for most individuals, independent of adverse prenatal and pre-placement experiences, and problematic post-adoption family circumstances, this theme has been noted in clinical writings (Lifton, 1994; Verrier, 1993) and more recently in online articles, social media posts, blogs, and Facebook groups2. Although perhaps reflecting the experiences and points of view of a small percentage of adopted individuals, it would be a mistake to dismiss what is being shared. There is much to be learned from these individuals in terms of understanding factors influencing variability in adoption adjustment. In our view, the experience of “adoption-as-trauma” represents ongoing negative appraisals of being adopted, as well as the importance of these appraisals for understanding one’s current sense of self, identity, relationships, and general well-being. When being adopted is accompanied by contextual life factors that include messages of “birth privilege”, a lack of empathy, understanding and support from key figures in the person’s life, including lack of specialized therapeutic support when needed, as well as by microaggressions, barriers for exploring adoption issues, and with insecure internalized models of attachment, it is likely that adoption appraisals will be more negative and used as a lens through which to attribute meaning about self, others, relationships, and one’s place in the world. This view of adoption-as-trauma is consistent with current theory and research explaining individual differences in response to other life adversities and trauma. Specifically, the impact of traumatic events is believed to be mediated by the person’s appraisals of those events in terms of their level of perceived severity and centrality to their lives, as well as by the extent of current attachment anxiety (see Ogle, et al., 2016; Smith & Pollak, 2021). In other words, the more severe and central to the self a person views an experience, including being adopted, and the greater their attachment anxiety, the more likely the experience will be appraised as traumatic, which in turn increases the risk of psychological maladjustment.
In summary, as adopted individuals move through childhood, adolescence and into adulthood and become increasing aware of the personal and societal implications of being adopted, there often occurs a deeply felt need to “make meaning” of their adoption experience. Unfortunately, there are too many circumstances in which adopted individuals do not get the emotional and practical support they need, which not only impacts adoption-related coping, but can also undermine attachment security (Feeney et al., 2007; Penny et al., 2007). For some, the adoption journey is met with disinterest, misunderstanding, resistance, disrespect, and even scorn, which can be emotionally destabilizing and even traumatic, leading to an insecure and incomplete sense of self and increased adjustment difficulties. But for those living in family and community contexts that provide empathy, respect, affirmation, and support, the quest for personal understanding and self-integration in relation to adoption progresses reasonably well, with most adults attributing positive feelings to their adoption experience and reporting generally positive life satisfaction (ter Meulen, et al. 2019).
Go to:
Conclusions and Future Directions
Trauma is a common experience in the lives of adopted children and youth. For most, it occurs prior to adoptive placement and involves prenatal deficiencies and/or early life adversities such as neglect, abuse, multiple caregivers, and institutional rearing. These types of early adversities can have profound harmful effects on the developing brain and on interpersonal relationships, undermining multiple areas of functioning, with long-term negative developmental consequences. Adoptive placement, when practiced within a rights and ethics perspective, can be a “protective factor” for vulnerable children, offering them the possibility of developmental recovery and a better life than they would have had if forced to remain in less stimulating and nurturing environments. Early, stable, and nurturing adoptive placements, accompanied when needed by specialized trauma-and attachment-informed clinical interventions, are critical for supporting developmental recovery. But as we have noted, even when children are placed in well-resourced and nurturing families and receive specialized interventions, recovery is uneven across areas of functioning, depending on age of adoptive placement and the extent of preadoption adversity. Some of the critical issues going forward are to better understand those factors that determine variability in resilience and recovery in children exposed to different types of early adversity, especially the post-adoption contextual and developmental factors that either support or undermine children’s well-being. Furthermore, we need more information about the role of differing levels and types of contact between adoptive and birth families on the well-being of adopted individuals and their families, especially those adopted from domestic foster care and from abroad. In addition, more research is needed on the effectiveness of clinical interventions targeting the impact of early adversity and trauma on these vulnerable children. Another important area that warrants attention is how adoption as a lived experience impacts the adjustment of emerging adults, including their parenting process. Such research would be helpful in determining the long-term impact of adoption and its capacity to break intergenerational transmission of emotional difficulties.
It is also our view that adoption per se is not inherently a trauma for the individual, but at the same time there is no question that for some individuals the adoption experience is a difficult one, compromising their emotional security, self-esteem, identity, and relationships. Moreover, these difficulties often emerge without any evidence of pre-placement adversity or trauma. Understanding those factors that contribute to variability in the lived experience of being adopted, including how it is appraised and integrated into the self-system, is an important research goal, with significant implications for parent preparation and post-adoption support services, especially those involving therapeutic interventions for family members. Although too many mental health professionals do not adequately understand the complexities of adoptive family dynamics (Brodzinsky, 2013), there is a growing trend toward improving clinical training in this area (Atkinson, 2020; Riley & Singer, 2020), which ultimately will better serve the needs of adoptees and their families.
Go to:
Acknowledgments
This article was supported, in part, by grants to the second author from the National Institutes of Health (HD095904 and HL149709).
Go to:
Footnotes
Publisher’s Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
Declarations of interest: none
1Quotes ae derived from the first author’s research and scholarly writings (Brodzinsky et al., 1984; Brodzinsky, et al., 1992). All identifying and contextual information have been redacted to preserve the individuals’ privacy and confidentiality. Research was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Rutgers University.
2See for example, https://postinstitute.com/the-adopted-child-trauma-and-its-impact/; https://www.huffpost.com/entry/adoption-related-trauma-a_b_1049205; https://adoption.org/can-adopted-newborn-adoption-related-trauma; Facebook Group “Adoption is Trauma.”
Go to:
Contributor Information
David Brodzinsky, Rutgers University.
Megan Gunnar, University of Minnesota.
Jesus Palacios, University of Seville.
Go to:
References
Askeland KG, Hysing M, La Greca AM, Aarø LE, Tell GS, & Sivertsen B (2017). Mental health in internationally adopted adolescents: A meta-analysis. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 56(3), 203–213. 10.1016/j.jaac.2016.12.009 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Atkinson SJ (2020). Adoption competent clinical practice. In Wrobel GM, Helder E, & Marr E (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of adoption (pp. 435–448). Routledge. [Google Scholar]
Baden AL (2016). “Do you know your real parents?” and other adoption microaggressions. Adoption Quarterly, 19, 1–25. 10.1080/10926755.2015.1026012 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Baden AL, Shadel D, Morgan R, White EE, Harrington ES, Christian N & Bates TA (2019). Delaying adoption disclosure: A survey of late discovery adoptees. Journal of Family Issues, 40, 1154–1180. 10.1177/0192513X19829503 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Bernier A, Carlson SM, & Whipple N (2010). From external regulation to Self regulation: early parenting precursors of young children’s executive functioning. Child Development, 81, 326–339. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01387.x [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Bick J, Zhu T, Stamoulis C, Fox NA, Zeanah C, & Nelson CA (2015). Effect of early institutionalization and foster care on long-term white matter development: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Pediatrics, 169(2), 211–219. 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2014.3212 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Bick J, Zeanah CH, Fox NA, & Nelson CA (2018). Memory and executive functioning in 12-year-old children with a history of institutional rearing. Child Development, 89(2), 495–508. 10.1111/cdev.12952 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Black KA, Moyer AM & Goldberg AE (2016). From face-to-face to Facebook: The role of technology and social media in adoptive family relationships with birth family members. Adoption Quarterly, 19(4), 307–332. 10.1080/10926755.2016.1217575 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Boss P (1999). Ambiguous loss: Learning to live with unresolved grief. Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar]
Bowie F (Ed.), (2004). Cross-cultural approaches to adoption. Routledge. [Google Scholar]
Brodzinsky DM (2005). Reconceptualizing openness in adoption: Implications for theory, research and practice. In Brodzinsky D & Palacios J (Eds.), Psychological issues in adoption: Research and practice (pp. 145–166). Praeger. [Google Scholar]
Brodzinsky DM (2011). Children’s understanding of adoption: Developmental and clinical implications. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 42, 200–207. 10.1037/a0022415 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Brodzinsky D (2013). A need to know: Enhancing adoption competence among mental health professionals. Donaldson Adoption Institute. [Google Scholar]
Brodzinsky D (2014). The role of birthparents in the life of the adoptive family: Real versus symbolic presence. In Scabini E & Rossi G (Eds.), Allargare lo spazio familiare: Adozione e affido. (pp. 223–238). Vita e Pensiero. [Google Scholar]
Brodzinsky DM, Schechter MD & Henig RM (1992). Being adopted: The lifelong search for self. Doubleday. [Google Scholar]
Brodzinsky DM, Singer L, & Braff AM (1984). Children’s understanding of adoption. Child Development, 55(3), 869–878. 10.2307/1130138 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Brown A, Waters CS & Shelton KH (2019). The educational aspirations and psychological well-being of adopted young people in the UK. Adoption and Fostering, 43(1), 46–59. 10.1177/0308575919826900 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Bruce J, Tarullo AR, & Gunnar MR (2009). Disinhibited social behavior among internationally adopted children. Development and Psychopathology, 21(1), 151–171. 10.1017/S0954579409000108 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Carlson EA, Hostinar CE, Mliner SB, & Gunnar MR (2014). The emergence of attachment following early social deprivation. Development and Psychopathology, 26(2), 479–489. 10.1017/S0954579414000078 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Crosbie J, Pérusse D, Barr CL, & Schachar RJ (2008). Validating psychiatric endophenotypes: inhibitory control and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Review, 32(1), 40–55. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2007.05.002 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Dalen M (2005). International adoptions in Scandinavia: Research focus and main results. In Brodzinsky DM & Palacios J (Eds.), Psychological issues in adoption: Research and practice (p. 211–231). Praeger. [Google Scholar]
Debnath R, Tang A, Zeanah CH, Nelson CA, & Fox NA (2020). The long-term effects of institutional rearing, foster care intervention and disruptions in care on brain electrical activity in adolescence. Developmental Science, 23(1), e12873. 10.1111/desc.12872. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Demers LA, McKenzie KJ, Hunt RH, Cicchetti D, Cowell RA, Rogosch FA, Toth SL, & Thomas KM (2018). Separable effects of childhood maltreatment and adult adaptive functioning on amygdala connectivity during emotion processing. Biological Psychiatry and Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging, 3(2), 116–124. 10.1016/j.bpsc.2017.08.010 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Doka KJ (2002). Disenfranchised grief: New directions, challenges, and strategies for practice. Research Press. [Google Scholar]
Dozier M & Rutter M (2016). Challenges to the development of attachment relationships faced by young children in foster care and adoptive care. In Cassidy J & Shaver PR (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 696–714). Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
Ellis BJ, Boyce WT, Belsky J, Bakermans-Kranenburg MJ, & van IJzendoorn MH (2011). Differential susceptibility to the environment: an evolutionary– neurodevelopmental theory. Development and Psychopathology, 23(1), 7–28. 10.1017/S0954579410000611 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Feeney JA, Passmore NL, & Peterson CC (2007). Adoption, attachment, and relationship concerns. A study of adult adoptees. Personal Relationships, 14(1), 129–147 10.1111/j.1475-6811.2006.00145.x [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Fisher PA, & Stoolmiller M (2008). Intervention effects on foster parent stress: Associations with child cortisol levels. Development and Psychopathology, 20(3), 1003–1021. 10.1017/S0954579408000473 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
French QYS (2013). Adoption as a contingency of self-worth: An integrative approach to self-esteem in adopted individuals. Adoption Quarterly, 16, 128–152. 10.1080/10926755.2013.787574 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Golm D, Maughan B, Barker ED, Hill J, Kennedy M, Knights N, Kreppner J, Kumsta R, Schlotz W, Rutter M, & Sonuga-Barke EJS (2020). Why does early childhood deprivation increase the risk for depression and anxiety in adulthood? A developmental cascade model. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 61(9), 1043–1053. 10.1111/jcpp.13205 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Green WH, Campbell M & David RJ (1984). Psychosocial dwarfism: A critical review of the evidence. American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 23(1), 39–84 https://doi.10.1097/00004583-198401000-00006 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Grotevant HD (2020). Open adoption. In Wrobel GM, Helder E, & Marr E (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of adoption (pp. 266–277). Routledge. [Google Scholar]
Grotevant HD, Lo AYH, Fiorenzo L & Dunbar ND (2017). Adoptive identity and adjustment from adolescence to emerging adulthood: A person-centered approach. Developmental Psychology, 53, 2195–2204. 10.1037/dev0000352 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Grotevant HD, Rueter M, Von Kroff L & Gonzalez C (2011). Post-adoption contact, adoption communication openness, and satisfaction with contact as predictors of externalizing behavior in adolescence and emerging adulthood. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 52, 529–536. https://doi.10.1111/j.1469-7610.2010.02330.x [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Grotevant HD & Von Korff L (2011). Adoptive identity. In Schwartz S, Luyckx K, & Vignoles V (Eds.), Handbook of identity theory and research (pp. 585–601). Springer. [Google Scholar]
Gunnar MR (2010). Reversing the effects of early deprivation after infancy: Giving children families may not be enough. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 4, 170. 10.3389/fnins.2010.00170 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Gunnar MR, DePasquale CE, Reid BM, Donzella B, & Miller BS (2019). Pubertal stress recalibration reverses the effects of early life stress in postinstitutionalized children. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(48), 23984–23988. 10.1073/pnas.1909699116 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Gunnar MR & Pollak SD (2007). Supporting parents so that they can support their internationally adopted children: the larger challenge lurking behind the fatality statistics. Child Maltreatment, 12(4), 381–382. 10.1177/1077559507306719. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Gunnar MR, & Reid BM (2019). Early deprivation revisited: Contemporary studies of the Impact on young children institutional care. In Gelman S & Waxman S (Eds.), Annual Review of Developmental Psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 93–118). 10.1146/annurev-devpsych1213-085013. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Hartinger-Saunders RM, Trouteaud A, & Johnson JM (2015). Post-adoption service need and use as predictors of adoption dissolution: Findings from the 2012 National Study of Adoptive Famiies. Adoption Quarterly, 18(4), 255–272. 10.1080/10926755.2014.895469 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Helder EJ, Mulder E & Gunnoe ML (2016). A longitudinal investigation of children internationally adopted at school age. Child Neuropsychology, 22(1), 39–64. 10.1080/09297049.2014.967669 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Hodel AS, Hunt RH, Cowell RA, Van Den Heuvel SE, Gunnar MR, & Thomas KM (2015). Duration of early adversity and structural brain development in postinstitutionalized adolescents. Neuroimage, 105, 112–119. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.10.020 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Holmgren E, Raaska H, Elovainio M & Lapinleimu H (2020). Behavioral and emotional adjustment in adoptees. In Wrobel GM, Helder E, & Marr E (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Adoption (pp.353–366). Routledge [Google Scholar]
Johnson DE, Tang A, Almas AN, Degnan KA, McLaughlin KA, Nelson CA, Fox NA, Zeanah CH, & Drury SS (2018). Caregiving disruptions affect growth and pubertal development in early adolescence in institutionalized and fostered Romanian children: A randomized clinical trial. The Journal of Pediatrics, 203, 345–353. 10.1016/j.jpeds.2018.07.027 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Juffer F, Bakermans-Kranenburg MJ, & van IJzendoorn MH (2005). The importance of parenting in the development of disorganized attachment: evidence from a preventive intervention study in adoptive families. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 46(3), 263–274. 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00353.x [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Juffer F & van IJzendoorn M (2005). Behavior problems and mental health referrals of internationally adoptees. A meta-analysis. Journal of the American Medical Association, 293(20), 2501–2515. 10.1001/jama.293.20.2501 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Kobak R, Zajac K & Madsen SD (2016). Attachment disruptions, reparative processes, and psychopathology: Theoretical and clinical implications. In Cassidy J & Shaver PR (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 25–39). Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
Koss KJ, Lawler JM, & Gunnar MR (2020). Early adversity and children’s regulatory deficits: Does postadoption parenting facilitate recovery in postinstitutionalized children? Development & Psychopathology, 32(3), 879–896. 10.1017/S0954579419001226 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Kumsta R, Stevens S, Brookes K, Schlotz W, Castle J, Beckett C, Kreppner J, Rutter M, & Sonuga-Barke E (2010). 5HTT genotype moderates the influence of early institutional deprivation on emotional problems in adolescence: evidence from the English and Romanian Adoptee (ERA) study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 51(7), 755–762. 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2010.02249.x [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Leinaweaver J (2018). Adoption. In Stein F, Lazar S, Candea M, Diemberger H, Robbins J, Sanchez A & Stasch R (Eds.), The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Anthropology. Open Access. 10.29164/18adopt. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Lifton BJ (1994). Journey of the adopted self: A quest for wholeness. Basic Books. [Google Scholar]
Lo AYH & Cashen KK (2020). How adoptive parents think about their role as parents. In Wrobel GM, Helder E, & Marr E (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Adoption (pp.278–290). Routledge. [Google Scholar]
Lo AYH & Grotevant HD (2020). Adoptive parenting cognitions: Acknowledgement of differences as a predictor of adolescents’ attachment to parents. Parenting: Science and Practice, 20(2), 83–107. 10.1080/15295192.2019.1694826. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Mackes N, Golm D, Sarkar S, Kumsta R, Rutter M, Fairchild GF, Mehta MA, & Sonuga-Barke E and Adult Follow-up Team (2020). Early childhood deprivation is associated with alterations in adult brain structure despite subsequent environmental enrichment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(1), 641–649. 10.1073/pnas.1911264116 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Marr E, Helder E, & Wrobel GM (2020). Historical and contemporary contexts of US adoption: An overview. In Wrobel GM, Helder E, & Marr E (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of adoption. (pp. 3–21). Routledge. [Google Scholar]
McCullough E, & Mathura A (2019). A comparison between a Neuro-Physiological Psychotherapy (NPP) treatment group and a control group for children adopted from care: Support for a neurodevelopmentally informed approach to therapeutic intervention with maltreated children. Child Abuse and Neglect, 97. 10.1016/j.chiabu.2019.104128 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
McLaughlin KA, Sheridan MA, Winter W, Fox NA, Zeanah CH, & Nelson CA (2014). Widespread reductions in cortical thickness following severe early-life deprivation: a neurodevelopmental pathway to attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Biological Psychiatry, 76(8), 629–638. 10.1016/j.biopsych.2013.08.016 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Merritt DH & Festinger T (2013). Post-adoption service need and access: Differences between international, kinship, and non-kinship foster care. Children and Youth Services Review, 35, 1913–1922. 10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.09.013 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Meyer M, Bekkering H, Haartsen R, Stapel JC, & Hunnius S (2015). The role of action prediction and inhibitory control for joint action coordination in toddlers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 139, 203–220. 10.1016/j.jecp.2015.06.005 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Miall CE (1996). The social construction of adoption: Clinical and community perspectives. Family Relations, 45(3), 309–317. 10.2307/585503 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Neil E & Howe D (2004). Contact in adoption and permanent foster care: Research, Theory and practice. British Association for Adoption and Fostering. [Google Scholar]
Neil E, Morciano M, , & Hartley JY (2020). Exploring links between early adversities and later outcomes for children adopted from care: Implications for planning post adoption support. Developmental Child Welfare, March 30. 10.1177/2516103220908043 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Nelson CA & Gabard-Durnam LJ (2020). Early adversity and critical periods: Neurodevelopmental consequences of violating the expectable environment. Trends in Neuroscience, 43(3), 133–143. 10.1016/j.tins.2020.01.002 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Nelson CA, Scott RD, Bhutta ZA, Harris NB, Danese A, & Smara M (2020). Adversity in childhood is linked to mental and physical health throughout life. British Medical Journal Open, 371, m3048. 10.1136/bmj.m3048 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Ogle CM, Rubin DC, & Siegler IC (2016). Maladaptive trauma appraisals mediate the relation between attachment anxiety and PTSD symptom severity. Psychological Trauma, 8(3), 301–309. 10.1037/tra0000112 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Pace CS, Di Folco S, Guerriero V, & Muzi S (2019). Late-adopted children grown up: A long-term longitudinal study on attachment patterns of adolescent adoptees and their adoptive mothers. Attachment & Human Development, 21(4), 372–388. 10.1080/14616734.2019.1571519 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Paine AL, Perra O, Anthony R, & Shelton KH (2020). Charting the trajectories of adopted children’s emotional and behavioral problems: The impact of early adversity and postadoptive parental warmth. Development and Psychopathology, 5, 1–15. 10.1017/S0954579420000231 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Palacios J (2009). The ecology of adoption. In Neil E (ed.), International advances in adoption research for practice (pp. 71–94). Wiley-Blackwell. [Google Scholar]
Palacios J (2020). Adoption instability, adoption breakdown. In In Wrobel GM, Helder E, & Marr E (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Aoption. (pp. 417–431). Routledge. [Google Scholar]
Palacios J, Adroher S, Brodzinsky D, Grotevant H, Johnson D, Juffer F, Martinez-Mora L, Muhamedrahimov R, Selwyn J, Simmonds J & Tarren-Sweeney M (2019). Adoption in the service of child protection: An international interdisciplinary perspective. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 25(2), 57–72. 10.1037/law0000192 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Palacios J, Román M, & Camacho C (2011). Growth and development in internationally adopted children: extent and timing of recovery after early adversity. Child: Care, Health & Development, 37(2), 282–288. 10.1111/j.1365-2214.2010.01142.x [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Palacios J, Román M, Moreno C, León E & Peñarrubia MG (2014). Differential plasticity in the recovery of adopted children after early adversity. Child Development Perspectives, 8(3), 169–174. 10.1111/cdep.12083 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Peñarrubia M, Palacios J, & Román M (2020). Executive function and early adversity in internationally adopted children. Children and Youth Services Review, 108, 104587. 10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.104587 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Penny J, Borders LD, & Portnoy F (2007). Reconstruction of adoption issues: Delineation of five phases among adult adoptees. Journal of Counseling & Development, 85, 30–41. 10.1002/j.1556-6678.2007.tb00441.x [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Pinderhughes EE & Brodzinsky DM (2019). Parenting in adoptive families. In Bornstein MH (Ed.), Handbook of parenting. Vol 1: Children and parenting (pp. 322–367). Routledge. [Google Scholar]
Pollak SD, Nelson CA, Schlaak MF, Roeber BJ, Wewerka SS, Wiik KL, Frenn KA, Loman MM, & Gunnar MR (2010). Neurodevelopmental effects of early deprivation in postinstitutionalized children. Child Development, 81(1), 224–236. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01391.x. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Raby KL, & Dozier M (2019). Attachment across the lifespan: Insights from adoptive families. Current Opinion in Psychology, 25, 81–85. 10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.03.011 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Reinoso M, Juffer F, & Tieman W (2013). Children’s and parents’ thoughts and feelings about adoption, birth culture identity and discrimination in families with internationally adopted children. Child and Family Social Work, 18, 264–274. 10.1111/j.1365-2206.2012.00841.x [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Reuter MA & Koerner AF (2008). The effect of family communication patterns on adopted adolescent adjustment. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 715–727. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2008.00516.x [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Riley D & Singer E (2020). Training for adoption competency curriculum. In Wrobel GM, Helder E, & Marr E (Eds.), Routledge handbook of adoption (pp. 449–463). Routledge. [Google Scholar]
Riley-Behringer M, Groza V, Tieman W & Juffer F (2014). Race and bicultural socialization in The Netherlands, Norway, and the United States of America in the adoptions of children from India. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 20(2), 231–243. 10.1037/a0035324 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Román M, Palacios J, Moreno C, & López A (2012). Attachment representations in internationally adopted children. Attachment & Human Development, 14(6), 585–600. 10.1080/14616734.2012.727257 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Sheridan MA, Fox NA, Zeanah CH, McLaughlin KA, & Nelson CA (2012). Variation in neural development as a result of exposure to institutionalization early in childhood. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(32), 12927–12932. 10.1073/pnas.1200041109 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Sheridan M.A.v& McLaughlin KA (2014). Dimensions of early experience and neural development: Deprivation and threat. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18, 580–585. 10.1016/j.tics.2014.09.001 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Smith D & Brodzinsky DM (1994). Stress and coping in adoption: A developmental study. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 23, 91–99. 10.1207/s15374424jccp2301_11 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Smith D & Brodzinsky DM (2002). Coping with birthparent loss in adopted children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 43, 213–223. 10.1111/1469-7610.00014 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Smith KE, & Pollak SD (2020). Early life stress and development: potential mechanisms for adverse outcomes. Journal of Neurodevelopmental Disorders, 12, 34 10.1186/s11689-020-09337-y [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Smith KE & Pollak SD (2021). Rethinking concepts and categories for understanding the neurodevelopmental effects of childhood adversity. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(1), 67–93. 10.1177/1745691620920725 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Smith SL (2014). Keeping the promise: The case for adoption support and preservation. Donaldson Adoption Institution. www.celcis.org/files/4515/7407/7582/Keeping-the-Promise-Case-for-ASAP-Brief.pdf [Google Scholar]
Stamoulis C, Vanderwert RE, Zeanah CH, Fox NA, & Nelson CA (2015). Early psychosocial neglect adversely impacts developmental trajectories of brain oscillations and their interactions. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 27(12), 2512–2528. 10.1162/jocn_a_00877 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Stovall KC, & Dozier M (2000). The development of attachment in new relationships: single subject analyses for 10 foster infants. Development and Psychopathology, 12, 133–156. 10.1017/s09545794000002029 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (2014). SAMHSA’s concept of trauma and guidance for a trauma-informed approach. HHS Publication No. (SMA) 14–4884 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. [Google Scholar]
ter Meulen G, Smeets D & Juffer F (2019). The relation between adult adoptees’ feelings about relinquishment, adoption, and life satisfaction. Adoption and Fostering, 43, 192–209. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0308575919841754 [Google Scholar]
Tottenham N (2020). Early adversity and the neotenous human brain. Biological Psychiatry, 87(4), 350–358. 10.1016/j.biopsych.2019.06.018 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
van den Dries L, Juffer F, van IJzendoorn MH, & Bakermans-Kranenburg MJ (2009). Fostering security? A meta-analysis of attachment in adopted children. Children and Youth Services Review, 31(3), 410–421. 10.1016/j.childyouth.2008.09.008 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
van der Bij J, den Kelder RO, Montagne B, & Hagenaars MA (2020). Inhibitory control in trauma-exposed youth: A systematic review. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 118, 451–462. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2020.06.001 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
van der Kolk BA & d’Andea W (2010). Towards a developmental trauma disorder diagnosis for childhood interpersonal trauma. In Lanius RA, Vermetten E, & Pain C (Eds.), The impact of early life trauma on health and disease: The hidden epidemic (pp. 57–68). Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
van IJzendoorn M, & Juffer F (2005). Adoption is a successful natural intervention enhancing children’s IQ and school performance. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(6), 326–330. 10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00391.x [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
van IJzendoorn MH, Bakermans-Kranenburg MJ, Duschinsky R, Fox NA, Goldman PS, Gunnar MR, Johnson DE, Nelson CA, Reijman S, Skinner GCM, Zeanah CH, & Sonuga-Barke EJS (2020). Institutionalisation and deinstitutionalisation of children 1: a systematic and integrative review of evidence regarding effects on development. Lancet Psychiatry, 7(8), 703–720. 10.1016/S2215-0366(19)30399-2 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
van IJzendoorn MH, Juffer F, & Poelhuis CW (2005). Adoption and cognitive development: A meta-analytic comparison of adopted and nonadopted children’s IQ and school performance. Psychological Bulletin, 131(2), 301–316. 10.1037/0033-2909.131.2.301 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
van Tieghem M, Korom M, Flannery J, Choy T, Caldera C, Humphreys KL, Gabard-Durnam L, Goff B, Gee DG, Telzer EH, Shapiro M, Louie JY, Fareri DS, Bolger N, & Tottenham N (2021). Longitudinal changes in amygdala, hippocampus and cortisol development following early caregiving adversity. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience (48), 100916. 10.1016/j.dcn.2021.100916 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Von Kroff L & Grotevant HD (2011). Contact in adoption and adoptive identity formation: The mediating role of family conversation. Journal of Family Psychology, 23, 393–401. https://doi.10.1037/a0023388 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Verrier NN (1993). The primal wound: Understanding the adopted child. Gateway Press. [Google Scholar]
Wade M, Zeanah CH, Fox NA, & Nelson CA (2020). Global deficits in executive functioning are transdiagnostic mediators between severe childhood neglect and psychopathology in adolescence. Psychological Medicine, 50(10), 1687–1694. 10.1017/S0033291719001764 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Windsor J, Moraru A, Nelson CA, Fox NA, & Zeanah CH (2012). Effect of foster care on language learning at eight years: Findings from the Bucharest Early Intervention Project. Journal of Child Language (14), 1–23. 10.1017/S0305000912000177 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Wretham AE & Woolgar M (2017). So children adopted from British foster care show difficulties in executive functioning and social communication? Adoption and Fostering, 41, 331–345. 10.1177/0308575917730295 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Yarger HA, Lind T, Raby KL, Zajac L, Wallin A, & Dozier M (2021). Intervening with Attachment and Biobehavioral Catch-Up to reduce behavior problems among children adopted internationally: Evidence from a randomized controlled trial. Child Maltreatment, Online ahead of print. 10.1177/10775595211010975 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Zajac L, Raby KL, & Dozier M (2020). Sustained effects on attachment security in middle childhood: results from a randomized clinical trial of the Attachment and Biobehavioral Catch-up (ABC) intervention. Journal Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 61(4), 417–424. 10.1111/jcpp.13146 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Zeanah CH, Scheeringa M, Boris NWSS, Heller SS, Smyke AT, & Trapani J (2004). Reactive attachment disorder in maltreated toddlers. Child Abuse & Neglect, 28(8), 877–888. 10.1016/j.chiabu.2004.01.010 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Zeanah CH, Smyke AT, Koga S, & Carlson B (2005). Attachment in institutionalized and community children in Romania. Child Development, 76, 1015–1028. 10.1111/j.14678624.2005.00894.x [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Zelazo PD (2020). Executive function and psychopathology: neurodevelopmental perspective. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 16, 431–454. 10.1146/annurevclinpscy-0723190224242 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
‘I knew there was something missing from my life’: The incredible story of three siblings who met for the first time in their sixties after being given away for adoption to three different families
‘I knew there was something missing from my life’: The incredible story of three siblings who met for the first time in their sixties after being given away for adoption to three different families
Episode six of Long Lost Family airs on ITV1 and ITVX tonight at 9pm
By Emma Pryer
Published: 16:55, 25 August 2024 | Updated: 08:44, 26 August 2024
When Mary Arbuthnot opened a letter from her dying father, Richard, more than 20 years ago, she had no idea it would change the course of her life. The sealed, brown envelope with ‘Mary’ on the front contained some paperwork and a note, reading: ‘Alright Queen. If you want to find out any info, here are the numbers. Love always, Mum and Dad.’
One of the phone numbers her father had provided was for a Liverpool adoption agency a call to them began what turned out to be a long quest to find her birth family. The agency’s records revealed that Mary’s birth mother was an unmarried Irish woman called Rita O’Reilly, who had been living in London but for some reason travelled to Liverpool for Mary’s birth in 1965 and that Rita had also given birth to two other children, a girl born in 1960 and a boy born in 1962. Mary, from West Derby, a suburb of Liverpool, was stunned. ‘I’d known since I was seven that I was adopted as a ten week-old baby, but I’d had such a great childhood with my brother, who was also adopted, that I never thought any more of it.’
So happy was she, that she had often yearned for other siblings. Now she was left overwhelmed by the news she actually had two she’d never met. Named Bridget and George, they were born in London. And, like her, they had been adopted, each to a different family. Unusually, they shared the same father, an Irishman called Jim Melody. ‘I was so shocked. It was a strange feeling because I’ve had a happy life, but there was always this thing that something was missing,’ says Mary, 58.
Meeting her brother and sister, she felt, would make her life complete. That same year, 2002, she spoke to a counsellor at the Nugent Adoption agency, who was able to give her some more information about her birth parents and siblings. It threw up a mix of emotions. Mary had always imagined her birth mother as a vulnerable teenager, forced by poverty or family disapproval to give up her baby. ‘Back in the Sixties, it would have been hard under those circumstances,’ says Mary, 58.
Instead, she discovered that her mother was 34 when she had given birth to her and had already given two babies away. ‘That didn’t sit well with me. I’m not angry at all, I just can’t fathom how any woman can give a whole family away. She was offered help by the Church but still chose to give us away.’
For the first time, Mary began to have doubts about trying to find her brother and sister: would they even want to be found?
‘Did they know about me and, if so, why hadn’t they come searching?’ she says. ‘Part of me thought that if I started looking and they didn’t want to be involved, I’d be sorry.’
For the time being, Mary busy with her career as a hairdresser and her role as a mother to Stephanie, now 38, and Richard, now 30 put the search out of her mind. Then, three years later, her father died. That loss seemed to trigger an even more powerful longing for the siblings she had never met. She found herself glued to the heartbreaking stories of adoption and reunion on ITV’s Long Lost Family, the programme that reunites relatives separated by adoption. In 2022, after yet another tear-jerking episode and a full 20 years since her father had given her the letter Mary finally decided to take a chance. She filled out an application to the show and then, as life got busy, almost forgot about it. Five months later, she received an unexpected phone call. ‘It was one of the Long Lost Family team who wanted to ask some more questions. I nearly dropped the phone!’ she says.
Because she had her siblings’ dates of birth, the team was able to make a quick breakthrough. They found her brother George and sister Bridget who was now called Andrea. Not only were they both alive and well, but were living just 40 miles apart from one another, 240 miles south of Mary. In an upcoming episode of the series, co-host Davina McCall breaks the news to Mary at her home in Liverpool. ‘It was just unbelievable,’ Mary recalls. ‘It was a life-changing moment, that’s the only way I can explain it. I started shaking because even though I’d known about them, it was another thing to actually be told “we’ve found them”.’
George and Andrea, meanwhile, were dealing with their own sense of shock after each receiving a letter from Long Lost Family explaining they had a sister who was trying to trace them. Andrea Tovey, 64, a former civil servant from Gillingham in Kent, initially thought the letter was a scam. ‘I was a bit suspicious. It was just such a shock to get a letter saying my sister was wanting to find me when I never knew I had one,’ the mum of two admits.
It was even more of an ‘unbelievable, wonderful shock’ to be told that she also had a brother. Today, as the three of them speak, there is an undeniable ease and warmth between them. They fall into a casual, comfortable patter as if they’ve known each other for decades, not months. With similar laid-back demeanours and endearingly gentle laughs, only Mary’s soft Liverpudlian accent gives away the fact the trio didn’t grow up together.nnAs Mary jokingly cuts across from George as he proudly claims responsibility for the reunion he had been looking for his two sisters for more than four years and was just days away from finding them himself before Long Lost Family got in touch you can see they have already developed that unmistakable knack for jovial sibling bickering. They chuckle about the obvious physical similarities: ‘We are all very pale,’ laughs Mary, ‘and if you look at the shape of our eyes and mouths I think it’s the same’.
Unlike Mary, both George and Andrea were raised as only children. Born in Highgate, London, and raised in Gillingham, Andrea had always known she was adopted. Like Mary, she had a blissfully happy childhood, brought up principally by her father, Leonard, after her adoptive mother Betty died of cancer when she was just six. Andrea had pulled her birth records as a young adult, but as she was the first child to be born to Rita O’Reilly, there was no mention of a younger brother or sister. Life was busy and fulfilling and she decided not to chase after her parents in case they weren’t interested in meeting. Born in Hackney and raised in Loughton, Essex, George Buttwell, 62, had also known he was adopted as long as he could remember. Like his sisters, he had a happy childhood, leaving him with little urgency to uncover his past. In 1998, his wife, Lesley, saw a programme about accessing adoption records, which piqued steel fixer George’s interest. He applied for his adoption paperwork and original birth certificate, which provided brief details about his birth parents. But it was really only years later in 2019 that his search got going. George’s youngest daughter, Lindsey, 34, bought him a DNA test as a gift. The results opened a new chapter, throwing up relatives he never knew he had in Ireland and London. He began to discover more about his past than he had ever imagined. George’s DNA test linked him to a second cousin in Ireland and through him and another member of his extended family, he heard he had two sisters for the first time. ‘Knowing that, I became determined to find them,’ says the father of three.
He then decided to explore a hunch that his sisters might have been born at the same Catholic nursing home in London as him. St Margaret’s no longer existed, but he was told he might be able to find out more about his sisters through the Catholic Children’s Society in Westminster. Its records contained the full names and dates of birth for his sisters. His local council adoption service agreed to contact his sisters on his behalf and was just doing some final legal checks when the letter arrived from Long Lost Family. ‘I’d been looking for four years by that stage. I told [the adoption service] to call off the search. It was amazing news but perhaps not as much of a surprise as it was to Andrea, who didn’t know about either of us.’
Last November, the three siblings finally came face-to-face in a Liverpool hotel in emotional scenes which will be broadcast tonight. As Davina explains as they wait to meet: ‘It is very rare for Long Lost Family to find and bring together three full siblings all of whom until today have been complete strangers to one another.’
Andrea was first in the room; her heart in her mouth. ‘It actually felt like quite a while before they came in and I started getting emotional before,’ she recalls. ‘It was something I’d never believed could happen after all this time but it was so nice. We held hands as we talked and we just seemed to get on straight away.’
George agrees. ‘It did feel like we were all family. You could feel that straight away that we’ve got this thing in common, no matter how far we’ve drifted.’
Now, though, the sibling bond appears to be growing stronger with every passing month. They have an official family WhatsApp Group called O’Reilly Melody after the surnames of their birth parents. In January, less than two months after the show, they came together again at George’s Essex home, where a picture of the three of them now takes pride of place in the living room. A second reunion followed in June, with a pub lunch in London and another trip to George’s house to share notes on their histories and meet extended family. Just this week, George’s daughter Sarah, 38, flew in from Spain and Andrea was there to meet her. Small things mean a lot: for Mary, it’s been a thrill to send birthday and Christmas cards to her brother and sister for the very first time. The growing bond feels so natural that Mary has even taken to cutting Andrea’s hair. ‘Every time I’ve seen her she’s blow-dried my hair and last time she actually cut it. I’ve never looked so glamorous,’ smiles Andrea.
But for all the joy of getting to know one another (Andrea even jokes she shares the same love for the TV detective, Columbo, as George) there is sadness for the missed years they could have had together. ‘I know that my parents would have adopted the other two if they’d have known and we could have all been together, as we should have been,’ says Mary.
The siblings have discovered that Jim Melody passed away around 20 years ago and Rita O’Reilly around ten years later. As they were unmarried, Jim was buried in Ireland and Rita in Finchley, North London. From what they have gathered from relatives, the siblings understand that Rita and Jim lived together on and off for 40 years, but the real nature of their relationship remains a mystery: the pair have taken to the grave many unanswered questions for Mary, Andrea and George. ‘For the time they were living in, for their background, it would have made a lot of sense to get married, so why didn’t they?, George, who has visited his mother’s grave, has often wondered. Why did their mother have them adopted, and to different families?
And why, when Rita and Jim appeared to travel from Dublin to London together, did Rita keep leaving their London address and flitting to different areas?
For now at least, the unresolved questions are overshadowed by the joy of finding one another. ‘I’ve got ideas of what I’d like to do if I get to the point of retiring, but this has given me this extra positive feeling. It’s this happy unknown future now and there’s already this genuine love there with us,’ says Andrea.
‘It’s a feeling you can’t really describe because it’s something I’ve never experienced before,’ says Mary. ‘It was like I’d already known them forever.’
Episode six of Long Lost Family airs on ITV1 and ITVX on August 25th, at 9pm
‘We had our babies taken from us we didn’t give them away’
‘We had our babies taken from us we didn’t give them away’
Jeannot Farmer urges Scottish Government to get answers for victims affected by historic forced adoption ‘before it is too late.’ Women who were forced to give their babies up for adoption have made an urgent plea for help finding out what happened to their children. Campaigners said the words in an apology made by the Scottish Government last year “lose their worth every day” without measures to help victims of the “ongoing injustice”. It comes a year after former first minister Nicola Sturgeon delivered an official apology in the Scottish Parliament to those who have been affected by historic forced adoption policies. The recognition was the first formal apology in the UK to tens of thousands of unmarried mothers “shamed” and “coerced” into having their babies adopted. Group Movement for an Adoption Apology sent a letter and knitted baby bootees to over 60 MSPs urging them to back the campaign. Jeannot Farmer warns time is running out for families. She told STV News: “We chose to put out a statement expressing concern that people are still passing away not knowing what happened to their children. The pain associated with that is severe. I know what it was like to find my son after 31 years and how every birthday was worse than the last one not knowing where he was. I can’t imagine that being doubled. We have friends in that situation. Living with the stigma all of those years is very difficult. But the stigma is nothing compared to the loss of your child.”
Jeannot was one of thousands of women forced to give up her baby for adoption. At the age of 22, she gave birth to a boy while she was still a fourth year university student. Despite having explored options with social services, she did not want to give up her son. However, she was told while she was in hospital that her baby would be put up for adoption. “Sometimes I go back to the apology to remember what was said. Words like ‘historic injustice’ are meaningful and important. What happened was cruel,” she said.
“That day, the stigma and disgrace of giving my baby up for adoption was removed from me. Now I don’t have anyone thinking I have submitted my child for adoption voluntarily. That was done to me. My child was not taken, not given.”
It is estimated around 60,000 women in Scotland were forced to give up their babies throughout the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. Hundreds of thousands of children were given up for adoption between 1949 and 1976 across the UK, at a time when unmarried mothers were often rejected by their families and ostracised by society. Adoptions were generally handled through agencies run by the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church and the Salvation Army. What you’ll find is most mothers it happened to don’t really know what happened to them,” Jeannot said.
“We had this idea mothers giving babies up for adoption analysed the risks and benefits of keeping or giving them up, then came up with a rational decision. That happened to no one. A far more common story is the mothers gave birth, were sent to another room to hold the baby for a minute, then that baby was gone and never seen again.”
The group Movement for an Adoption Apology made a number of recommendations, such as councils delivering trauma-informed counselling services; easier birth record access; reunion services and formal apologies from institutions which administered services that resulted in coerced or forced adoption. But campaigners insist measures discussed in the Parliament on that day have “failed to emerge”. While work is currently underway to deliver funding for peer-support services, Jeannot said more work must be done to allow victims to access records. The system is already in place in states across Australia, where around 250,000 are estimated to have been affected by the practice. Jeannot said thousands risk being left with unanswered questions about their identity without the government taking action. “It’s incredibly urgent,” Jeannot said. “People are dying. People should be allowed to know the name of the person they have lost and find out if they might still be alive. We are losing the opportunity to pass on important information to our families and pass on a legacy for their relatives. Those questions, the hurt and the grief does not end with the passing of the father and the mother. Those ripples extend beyond. It’s also about passing on medical information; if a mother, sister or aunt has breast cancer, there is no way to tell a daughter who was adopted to get tested for the gene. It’s about what the children inherit too; ‘why do I have that shape of my nose?’ ‘Why am I good at art?’ People want to know these things.”
Jeannot said that it is important to remember mothers and adoptees reserve the right to refuse contact. She added: “People have a right to privacy, but people also have a right to information. It’s about a balance in-between those two things. But if our children had been taken by a random stranger, no one would question our right to know who they are. That’s what happened to our children who were taken. We didn’t give them away.”
Marking the anniversary Natalie Don, Minister for Children, Young People and Keeping the Promise said: “I acknowledge the immense pain and suffering that adoptees, mothers and families have endured as a result of these unjust practices. Addressing the harms caused remains a priority for this Government. We are establishing a series of lived experience sessions on historic forced adoption, to be facilitated by the Scottish Government’s Principal Psychological Adviser. These sessions will explore collaborative solutions and will discuss what form of support is needed to address the emotional and psychological impact of historic forced adoption for adoptees, mothers and families. We are also exploring what more we can do to ensure people affected by historic forced adoption are able to easily access the right information and support when they need it. This includes working with both the National Records of Scotland and Scottish Court and Tribunals Service in order to assist people with the practical aspects of accessing records, as well as signposting to further support. We continue to fund the charity, Health in Mind, to provide specialist support through peer support groups. Monthly peer support sessions are now being held for mothers and an adoptees group will begin shortly.”
‘I regret adopting my daughter I feel like I’m babysitting a stranger’s kid’
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/us-news/i-regret-adopting-daughter-feel-31947707
‘I regret adopting my daughter I feel like I’m babysitting a stranger’s kid’
A mum has sparked outrage after admitting she regrets adopting her daughter as she has never loved her as much as her biological children and still sees her as ‘someone else’s child’
By Paige Freshwater Content Editor
13:38, 23 Jan 2024Updated15:05, 23 Jan 2024
A mum has caused a stir by confessing she regrets adopting her daughter, admitting she’s never loved her as much as her biological children. She shared her story on Reddit, explaining that after having her son through IVF, she chose to adopt for her second child. However, she confessed she’s never been able to bond with her adopted daughter and over time, even began to resent her. The woman wrote: “So years ago before the birth of my first son, I was told it would be hard for me and my husband to conceive. We went through IVF and eventually I gave birth to my son. A few years later we wanted another child but didn’t want to have to go through the time and expense we did the last time with our son. So we decided to adopt. We adopted this beautiful baby girl whose parents were too young to raise her themselves. I loved her so much and treated her no different but I’ve never had the feeling she’s my own. I often feel like I’m babysitting someone else’s child. I feel terrible but I can’t help it. I’ve tried forcing myself to feel it but I just don’t. She’s 15 now and I’ve never felt a connection with her.”
But four years ago, the woman discovered she’d fallen pregnant naturally – and was expecting another girl. This only strained her relationship with her adopted daughter further, as she started to feel more excluded from the family. “We were so surprised since it just happened naturally and we found out it was going to be a girl. During the pregnancy, my hormones were all over the place and I started hating my adopted daughter because I felt if I had just waited then I wouldn’t have to have had her. When my daughter was born everything just felt right. I felt a proper connection like with my son and I bonded straight away.”
In search of sympathy, she confessed: “I sound horrible but adopting her was a massive mistake. I wish I could go back in time. I love her to pieces but unfortunately not as much as my biological children. I hate myself for it since I promised her parents I’d love her no different and I feel like I’ve let everyone down.”
To this, one Reddit user replied: “Therapy for you. Under no circumstances tell your daughter that you don’t love her as much as your bio kids, though that’s something that’s not hard to miss. Reach out to her birth family, if they’re decent people and you haven’t maintained contact, and see if they’d be interested in spending more time with her. This girl deserves to be enthusiastically cared for and loved by the people in her life. What about your husband? Does he feel the same way?”
Another person commented: “Since you already had a biological child you shouldn’t have adopted. I have heard lots of adoptees say they have always felt like they were competing with the biological child of the adoptive parent. I will say at least you have the courage to be honest, which is rare among adoptive parents. Does the child have any interaction with her birth family? Perhaps if she had a good relationship she could go back to them.”
A third person chimed in: “I really hope your adoptive daughter doesn’t know how you feel. Have you looked into professional help for yourself to dissect what’s going on and why you haven’t allowed yourself to bond? There are so many techniques out there that could have been used to create that bond. I know because I used some of them when I struggled to bond with my adoptive daughter. They worked. I feel so upset on behalf of your 15-year-old. I hope she never finds out and that you’ve said this because you want things to change. You can work to repair and create that bond rather than dwelling on the past and your own anger and regret. I hope you haven’t damaged her through any perceptible emotional distance on your part. How dreadfully sad that you still feel you are babysitting someone else’s child after all these years. Please stop dwelling on what might have been and step up to being the best parent you can be to her by seeking help if need be.”