The Great National Adoption Week Debate

When I was a fairly new adoptive parent, I remember being aware that Adoption Week was taking place, bringing with it a certain discord within the community when it did so. I wasn’t, at the time, too sure why this was.

Year on year since then, my understanding of the complexities of the week have continued to grow until I now find myself hugely conflicted about the rights and wrongs of it all.

So, what is National Adoption Week all about? Is it about adoptees sharing stories and celebrating their adopted status? Err, not really. And the fact of whether they would want to do that at all is a debate within itself. No, Adoption Week is essentially a mass recruitment drive – a way of raising the profile of adoption so as to encourage more prospective parents to come forward. On face value that seems like a sensible enough plan – especially as there are currently over 4100 children waiting for permanence in the UK.

And yet…

Of course adoptees should be central to adoption week. I think those 4100 potential adoptees are, but not the thousands who have been adopted in the past and are now adults. They are conspicuous by their absence. Currently, adoption week is not about them or for them and I can fully understand their feelings of being cast aside.

Cynically, the real reason behind this is that many adult adoptees are not exponents of adoption. Sure, there are many who are happily adopted; some who have even gone on to adopt children themselves. But there are many who, if given a platform during adoption week, would use it to warn about the dangers of adoption; as an opportunity to press for change; who, if asked, would say, ‘do not adopt’. Clearly, speaking the truth of their lived experience would absolutely be their prerogative. And perhaps some would argue that those voices should be heard loud and clear in order to make necessary change happen in the sector.

Yet I can also see that were the majority of voices saying don’t adopt, this would surely have a significant knock-on to the number of people who would then consider becoming parents via adoption. Some would argue this would be for the better – after all if a person’s experience of adoption has been negative, why would they want it to keep happening to others? They wouldn’t.

Conversely, I can see why adoption agencies try to control this. While some would suggest this makes agencies corrupt, for me, it comes back to the 4100 children waiting. If numbers of prospective adopters dwindle, what happens to those children?

I suppose the majority (if not all) would spend their entire childhood within The Care System. Some might argue that this would be alright – they would be cared for, have stability and still maintain links with their birth families. However, unfortunately, not all foster placements are created equal. And behind the scenes there is the sometimes unfathomable workings of stretched social services teams, which end up moving children multiple times from placement to placement, deeming some children ‘unfoster-able’ and moving them into residential care homes. Like foster carers, some homes are brilliant but others are certainly not. And then there are the issues of permanence post 18 or 21 (depending on the placement type). There are many foster carers who informally offer young people support and family throughout their adult lives but this is not a requirement and by no means a given. A read of Lemn Sissay’s best-selling memoir, My Name is Why, tells you everything you need to know about how the ‘care system’ all too frequently does the opposite of care.

Is this what we want for those 4100 children? An unpredictable childhood? Which may see them thrive, but equally, for others, barely survive?

I have heard arguments for Special Guardianship Orders (SGOs) as a more stable alternative to ‘care’ but a less permanent severing of biological ties than adoption. But is it really a viable alternative when there is no SGO version of adoption/maternity leave and no such thing as post-SGO support? Those who currently care for children under SGOs (often grandparents or aunties/uncles) do so in the most challenging of circumstances with little to no support or understanding of the challenges they face. Until the inequalities in support provided for SGOs and adoption are more fairly balanced, I don’t see how SGOs can be a truly viable alternative to use on a wide scale.

So we are left with adoption. It is not a panacea, it is a last resort.

Or is it? Within this great big debate, one also has to consider how children get to be waiting for adoption in the first place. Adoption should be the last resort, to be used in circumstances when every other possible route to permanence has been explored and ruled out, but is it always used that way? We have to think about why children are removed from birth families in the first place. Has it been for a reason that could have been resolved had the birth family been offered more or better support? If so, that family has been dealt a great disservice. It is hard to justify a permanent legal severance in a situation where a struggling mum really just needed more help.

Or what about situations where there has been domestic violence or coercive control? Once the perpetrator is removed from the situation, is the remaining parent (usually the mother) really an unfit parent? Or a victim who should not have to pay twice for her wounds with the subsequent loss of her children?

There are so many huge questions which have to be considered at all stages of the child protection process which ultimately leads to adoption. None of this is easy or clear. For every parent who was given chance after chance and adequate support to parent but didn’t take it, there will be another who was a victim of their circumstances. There will be those children who find themselves waiting for adoption who were removed from their mothers on the ‘risk of future harm’ premise and those who were systematically and horrifically abused. There will be those children who go on to be adopted whose birth parents would not harm them were they to see them every week and there are those children who should never, ever see their parents again after the irreparable harm they caused them. Individual circumstances are so different and so nuanced that it’s impossible to take one story and extrapolate it into a solution for all.

I suppose this is why adoption, as a concept, is so divisive. Where it has been the right solution for one, it has been extremely traumatic for another.

So, if I’m not sure about ‘care’ or SGO’s for the 4100, do I think adoption is the right solution? Well, it’s pretty obvious that I think it can be, because I am an adoptive parent and I wouldn’t have chosen to do something I didn’t believe could be right. I say ‘could be’ because it isn’t a given. It does depend on things such as recruiting the right kind of people to be adopters – those who are resilient and able to appropriately support a traumatised child; who can be there for them through life story work and contact and reuniting with their birth family if/when the young person wants that and, importantly, are motivated to adopt for all the right reasons. It depends on appropriate training of prospective adopters – being truthful with them about the challenges they’ll likely face and not perpetuating the happy ever after myth. It depends on robust post-adoption support.

If all that is in place, can adoption be the right thing for a child? I believe so. I believe it can give them a stability and permanence that cannot currently be achieved any other way. And if we need adoption, we do need to find adopters.

We have to be honest though, and we have to say that adoption does not work out as you would hope in all situations, usually because one of the criteria I described above hasn’t been met.

I think there is a general consensus now, within many corners of the adoption community, that adoption as it stands needs to change. From the few adoptee voices that are being heard, we know that having all ties to biological roots or heritage or culture legally severed is incredibly detrimental and has life-long impacts. Being removed from the parents who conceived and carried and birthed you is not something one ‘just gets over’ as many were told in the past. So it seems increasingly important that where links can safely be maintained with members of children’s birth families, they should be. If we think of the mother who was a victim of domestic abuse or the one who needed more support, we can see that an adopted child still being able to spend time with them could be of great benefit to all.

Again, I don’t think we can start saying that all adoptions should be open because what of the paedophiles and abusers? I am certain there are situations where it is in the child’s best interests to never see their parents again. But should they have as much information as possible about them at their fingertips? Of course. They will still need to know where they got their eyebrows from even if it is too damaging to have those relatives in their lives.

I think what I’m saying is that behind the billboards and newspaper adverts of bonny-looking children, there is a huge swampy, divisive, polarising debate going on. It’s a debate that needs to be had to move adoption forwards and to ensure that we do it better. It’s a debate that involves difficult questions and unpalatable facts and no easy answers. It’s a debate with no single solution.

The pity of it is that it’s a debate which currently divides. It is a shame because the posters and the agencies and the adult adoptees and the more experienced adopters and the grandparents with SGOs and the birth parents who desperately fought to keep their children really all want the same thing: the best for their children and for future children like them. We all want the best for the 4100. It’s just that we all have a different viewpoint of what that best is.

At the moment The Great Adoption Week debate mainly goes on in muttered huddles behind billboards, with many pretending the campaign isn’t happening, yet feeling irked it is. The recruitment aspect still tends to dominate. Wouldn’t it be great if, somehow, the debate in all its meaty complexity could step forward? Punch through the posters? Wouldn’t it be even better if all the groups with vested interests could pull together, with adoptees at their centre, and sort this shit out?

If everyone worked together, perhaps better support for SGO’s could be secured? Perhaps policy around risk-assessing maintaining maximum links with birth relatives could be written and put into practise, instead of every child with a permanency plan just having annual Letterbox automatically added to it? Perhaps more creative solutions could be found. Perhaps plans would be more personalised to individual circumstances and also flexible enough to reflect changes to circumstances. Perhaps every adoption panel and advisory do-dah would have adoptees on it.

I suspect there would still be adoption but it might work differently to how it does now. I suspect it will become more open and get used more carefully as we move forwards. I just hope that together, we can push the debate onward.

In the meantime, 4100 children wait. And aside from the rights or wrongs of the methods employed, National Adoption Week at least endeavours to find them a solution.

 

 

 

Boys Don’t Cry

This morning, I have spent a bit of time reviewing the various bits of writing I have created over the last six months or so. A couple of pieces have found a home but I was sorting through the homeless ones, deciding what was going to be entered in upcoming competitions etc. There is one piece which I really want to have a home because the content of the story is extremely important and, I suspect, would be enlightening to many. I have been pondering where it should go and think I have concluded that I will really struggle to sell it to most (all?) mainstream short story publishers. Why? Well, it’s pretty gritty, northern, and I suppose, angry. It is also extremely sweary.

Anyhoo, to cut a long monologue short, I think I’m going to publish it here. It’s risky because it isn’t my usually content and there is a risk of offending you, my lovely readers. However, it is essentially a fictional account which passes comment on the state of our Care and Education systems and raises important issues which I feel should be heard and should be thought about by a wider audience.

TRIGGER WARNING: If reference to self-harm/ being in Care/ frequent moves/ domestic violence/obscenities might upset you, please don’t read on.

If you’re cool with all that, feel free to share with those who might like it/ be enlightened by it.

For all the Vinnie’s out there:

Boys Don’t Cry

Vinnie slouched along Penn Lane, his rucksack hanging languidly over his shoulder. Every now and again he saw a piece of litter or a stone in his path and booted them. Last night’s ‘chat’ with Barbara ran on a loop in his head. She was his Social Worker, his fourth to be exact.

“Vincent, I’m sorry love, but Marianne just isn’t coping with you. It’s the swearing, Hun. The coming in after curfew and she says what finally did it, was you stealing from the kitchen again. She’s tried her best, she has, but she can’t cope any more. So, I’m really sorry, but we’ve had to find you a new place…. I’m, err, I’m sure you’ll like this one Vinnie…. It’s a couple, Les and Maureen. They’re going to come and get your stuff tomorrow while you’re at school and they’ll meet you in the car park afterwards. Ok, love? Now, Vincent, try your best this time eh?”

Home. That’s what they call it. They’re not your parents like, but they’re gonna look after you as if they were. That’s what they say. ‘Make yourself at home Vinnie’; ‘This is your home now Vinnie’. But they don’t mean it. Cos if you eat food from your own fridge, in your own home, they say you’ve been fucking stealing.

Six weeks he’d been there now, at Marianne’s. It was just starting to feel normal, like maybe it could be home but turns out she’s just like all the others. Two-faced bitch. Vinnie felt tears prick at his eyes and that familiar ache in his stomach. All he wanted was a home. A place. His place. With people who gave a shit. He was so jealous of his mates with parents. Why couldn’t they have just let him stay with his Mum? She was a total smack ‘ed, he got that, but any shitty excuse for a human would be better than this – getting wafted about like a piece of dirt. The tears were filling his lower lids, threatening to overspill. “Man up,” Vinnie told himself, scrubbing at his eyes with his blazer sleeve, “Boys don’t cry, you pansy.”

He turned the corner onto the high street. So he was moving then? This would be the twelfth time in five years. Twelve ‘homes’. He should start one of those tallies prisoners etch on the wall in their cells to count down the days. He didn’t know where he’d put it though, seeing as he didn’t even have a wall. He had less than a prisoner which was fucking sad. Maybe he should etch the tally on his body instead cos that was the only thing that went everywhere with him. Yeah, he might do that later, with his pen knife.

Vinnie stopped outside of the newsagent, waiting for someone who looked likely. Kath from the bungalows shuffled up so he asked her. “Get us some fags will ya?” he said, pressing a note into her hand.

“Ooh love, haven’t you given that up yet? Filthy habit it is.”

“Kath, you smoke forty a day!”

“Well, yes love, but I’m old, my lungs are screwed aren’t they? But you’re young. You’ve got your whole life ahead of ya. Well, go on then, but make this the last time eh?”

The vapours calmed him a bit. He concentrated on the in, the choke-inducing hold then the out. Long, slow, deliberate.

He had Maths first thing with Mr ‘knob-ed’ Charles. He hated it. Maths made him feel proper thick. The numbers moved about sometimes, twisting and bending and making his brain throb. He could do it, if he had enough time but Mr. Charles seemed to go too fast on purpose, like getting kids brains tangled up was a sport for him. Sick, he was.

Vinnie pushed open the door and lumbered over to his desk, vaguely aware the lesson had started already.

“Vincent Capoletti!” boomed Mr Charles, “How dare you disrespect me and my Maths class by wandering in late! What time do you call this? It is Monday morning and this is your first lesson. What excuse could you possibly have for this level of tardiness? Hmm?”

“You don’t wanna know Sir”

“Well, actually young man, I do want to know, that is why I have interrupted my teaching to ask you. So?”

“So, what?”

“So, Capoletti, why are you late?”

“I’m just late Sir. Sorry. Can we drop it?”

“No, Capoletti, we cannot drop it. Not only are you late but you are rude. Stay behind at the end. And tuck your shirt in!”

Vinnie wasn’t in the mood for this. He rarely was but today school was making him feel more claustrophobic than ever. Trapped. I’m really sorry, but we’ve had to find you a new place… I’m sure you’ll like this one Vinnie…. It’s a couple, Les and Maureen.

Les and Maureen. Vinnie wondered what they were like. Maybe they collected those shit pottery dogs that all old people have. Maybe they were into really kinky stuff like swinging and that. Oh God, he hoped they didn’t have other Care kids there. He couldn’t bear it. Another life ruined by social-fucking-services. Another screwed-up brat who he wouldn’t be able to get on with cos he was scared of ever becoming them. Even though he was them already. One of those kids that literally nobody wants.

“…Capoletti! The square root of 25? It isn’t even hard and I’ve asked you twice already!” “Erm, I dunno Sir, 3?” Vinnie could hear the cool group who sat nearer the front sniggering at his ineptitude. It was alright for them and their detached houses and parents with professional jobs. They had time to care about this shit.

Vinnie was feeling edgier by the minute. He tried jiggling his leg to release some energy. It was like Krakatoa inside of him. He’d learned about it in Geography, one of the only lessons he’d ever enjoyed. It was like Krakatoa, the volcano, was inside of him, simmering and hissing and getting close to a catastrophic eruption. He tried to dampen it down, distract himself with his thoughts. All thoughts led back to that chat with Barbara though or to his sad excuse of a mother or to Marianne. He didn’t want to think about her. He could really do with a fag.

Mr Charles made him stay behind at the end for one his righteous teacher monologues. Apparently Vinnie didn’t actually need to answer any of the questions. They were ‘rhetorical’. Mr Charles took great pleasure in telling him so. He was on Report now which was just effing-fabulous.

He’d missed five minutes of break already but was so desperate for a smoke that he took himself to the far edge of the field, where the big tree was, and smoked three fags one after the other even though there wasn’t enough time. He gave himself a liberal spray of Lynx before rushing, of a manner, to French.

“Miss, can you sign my report card?” he said, wafting it in front of Madame Trudeau.

“You want me to sign your card? To say you are on time for my lesson?” she enquired in her fake-sounding French accent.

“Yes miss”

“But you are not on time for my lesson Vincent. Sit down.”

Seriously! Why would no-one just give him a break? Why did teachers have to be so up their own arses? Two tiny minutes late, that was all. Vinnie threw his bag onto the floor and scraped the chair noisily back. He put his elbows on the desk, jabbing his fists into his eye sockets. Krakatoa grumbled and threatened.

“Vincent, I will not ‘av this lack of respect in my classroom. Sit up and take your arms off the desk!”

With great effort, Vinnie did as she bid.

“Where is your homework Vincent? You owe me two pieces now.”

“I, err….”

“Well, do you ‘av it or not?”

“No, I fucking-well haven’t!”

Oh shit. He didn’t mean to say that. The words had just come out of their own accord. His tongue had run away with him as his Nan used to say. It’s the swearing, Hun. Vinnie’s heart pounded and adrenaline coursed through his veins. His body pushed him up to standing. His arms thrust forward and he shoved the table. Hard. He upended his chair, grabbed his bag and slammed the door with such force a glass panel fell out. The noise on impact with the polished floor was ear shattering; the moments afterwards foreboding in their silence. Dagger shaped shards scattered like sinister marbles and crunched under his shoes.

For a second, Vinnie felt compelled to reach for a sliver to slice his flesh with. To bleed the pain away. He’d have done it too but Mr McDermott appeared ghost-like from nowhere and dragged him off to Isolation.

“I don’t know what’s got into you Capoletti! It’s only 10:30am on Monday and somehow, somehow, you’ve already got yourself on Report, annoyed Mr Charles, annoyed Madame Trudeau and destroyed school property! That’s good going even for the likes of you. Now, you’re in here for the rest of the day. Miss. Rivers is supervising. No talking. If I were you lad, I’d get my head together.”

Why do teachers always stink of stale fucking coffee, Vinnie wondered. It was disgusting. Someone should have a word with Mr McDermott about his oral hygiene.

Vinnie chose the booth in the corner and sat himself down. He allowed his head to fall onto his folded arms and closed his eyes. They’re going to come and get your stuff tomorrow while you’re at school and they’ll meet you in the car park afterwards. He wondered what they’d put his stuff in this time. A black bin bag again? Not that he had anything much. Just a couple of trackies and his memory box. He’d have packed himself but Marianne disappeared last night so he couldn’t ask her for a bag. Locked in her room she was. She hadn’t come out this morning either so he hadn’t even got to say goodbye. She must really hate him. Maybe she was scared of what he’d do now she was turfing him out? Did she think he was a fucking thug? That he’d knock her about or summat? Treat her like his Dad treated women?

A yoghurt. That was all he’d had. He was starving and he hadn’t wanted to disturb her.

Anyway, what did it matter? He’d never see her again. He’d add her to the list later, with the other eleven, then he’d forget about her, like the others.

The tears threatened again. Vinnie squeezed his fists hard, so his ragged nails jabbed his skin. What he wouldn’t give for a hug. He couldn’t remember the last time anybody had touched him. A squeeze on the shoulder or a friendly pat, even. Nothing. They don’t touch you in case you accuse of them of rape and that. He wouldn’t do that though, he wasn’t a knob, he just wanted someone to hold him. Just for a few minutes. A memory floated into Vinnie’s mind of him as a little lad, lying with his head on his Nan’s lap, her gently stroking his hair over and over. The old feelings of safety and love pricked at him, cruel reminders of what he no longer had.

Vinnie started to panic again, a heady cocktail of cortisol and adrenaline thrumming through him. He lifted his head to look for a distraction. The booth had three walls, hemming him in. Everything was white. It was like a fucking padded cell. Vinnie was struggling to stay still. His muscles were twitching and flexing. He jiggled one leg then the other. He jiggled faster but the feelings wouldn’t stop. Krakatoa was really threatening now. Vinnie was terrified of the eruption. Catastrophic they said. No coming back from that. Part of him wanted it though. The obliteration.

His thoughts raced. His mum. In a dirty dressing gown, half her teeth missing. One of the houses. Another. Marianne. Barbara. The glass smashing. His blood.

Vinnie drove his head into the surface of the table to make it stop.

“Oi! Mr. Capoletti! How dare you disrupt Isolation! SILENCE!”

Shouting. His Dad. His mum’s black eye. A police car. That noise, of the siren. Terror. Piss soaking into his back in the bed.

Images kept coming. Ones he’d shut away ages ago. He didn’t want to see them. He was hearing the siren like it was there and he just needed it to fucking stop. He was on his feet. His leg kicked the chair over; his hand drove itself into the wall. It was happening. The magma was hurtling upwards.

He was vaguely aware of Miss Rivers radioing for the senior leadership team. Fuck ‘em. Fuck the lot of them. No one gave a shit about him anyway. No one, in the whole fucking world. The desk was upturned now. The paper contents of his bag shredded, creating an eerie juxtaposition of snow against bloodshed.

Mr McDermott was there and some of the others, handling him.

“Don’t fucking touch me!” Vinnie screamed, flailing. “Get the fuck away from me.”

“Vincent, you need to calm down son. You can’t behave like this in school. Do what you like on the streets but its zero tolerance in here. Calm it or we’ll have to involve the Police.”

The Pigs. No, he couldn’t see them. He had to get out. Away. He couldn’t breathe. He needed air. “I’m fucking going you cunts. Chill out,” he spat, grabbing his bag and pushing to the door.

“Vincent, you can’t just leave school. You have to be here. We’ll be calling your fost…” But he was gone, sprinting, his legs driving him forward. Pumped. Lava spewing out, excoriating his thoughts.

*

Later, Vinnie couldn’t remember it too well. He didn’t know how long he ran for or where he’d even gone. He had no fucking idea where he was now. He sat on a wall and looked at his phone. Ten missed calls and several messages from Barbara. He didn’t bother reading them. He was suddenly very tired. Exhausted. It was like there was nothing left of him, a gaping caldera where he should have been. Vinnie tried to think but his brain didn’t work. He couldn’t make a plan. His thoughts wouldn’t do it. There was nothing. Just emptiness. It should have been better, not having the pictures in his head and the words on loop. But it wasn’t. He was so hollow it was terrifying. If nobody was missing him and he couldn’t even feel himself, was he even real? Would he just float into the air like a spec of dirt? Would be dissipate? Dissolve? Just go?

Vinnie needed to feel something. Anything. The knife was still in his pocket, reassuringly cold and solid. It felt good in his palm; weighty. Then, the satisfying click of the blade.

 

 

 

 

Why Nativity Rocks is Not For Care-Experienced Children

This afternoon, we went along to the cinema with some friends of ours to watch what we thought would be a family-friendly film: Nativity Rocks. We’ve all seen the other films in the Nativity franchise which are funny, silly and worth a watch and just assumed this would be the same. However, I felt I had to write this post afterwards, to warn other families like ours that it might not be wise to take your children along after all.

The problems begin early on when Mr Poppy’s long-lost brother turns up trying to find him. The brother, who is a grown man, talks about not having a family and soon mentions that his mother “didn’t want him” and “put him in a children’s home”, before he ended up homeless and unloved and she died. There is so much to unpick in that sentence alone.

I sort of see where the writers were trying to go with this – I guess they were trying to acknowledge that some children who go into Care feel a sense of abandonment and as though it was their fault, somehow having driven their parents to ‘give them up.’ As we know, children are rarely ‘given up’ these days but aside from that, the narrative was such that Mr Poppy’s brother’s opinion wasn’t really corrected. Because the words about being put into Care come from a grown-up’s mouth, it makes the viewer feel as though they are true: that children really do go into Care because of something they have done. Were it a child saying it, perhaps I could forgive the film as trying to represent how looked-after children really feel, but it didn’t come across that way. For a young person viewing it, I think there would be a very real risk that they begin to question whether going into Care could have been their fault.

Not only this, but for non-care experienced children watching the film, the questions they are likely to carry away with them are, “When I meet an adopted or fostered child, I wonder what they have done wrong to have been taken away from their parents?”

Later on, the brother makes a throw-away comment about having been bullied and his Mum thinking he’d stolen something he hadn’t, leading to him, in his mind, going to the children’s home. Again this isn’t corrected and further perpetuates the myth that children go into Care through some fault of their own. The idea of being unloved and rejected continues throughout and is unfortunately portrayed as synonymous with being in Care.

As if this wasn’t bad enough, the film proceeds to present a very glib picture of how adoption works. There is a side story about a young refugee who has travelled to Britain from Syria, becoming accidentally lost from his father along the way. A social worker appears to care for him (wearing a stereotypical rainbow jumper, obviously) and takes him to what I assume is meant to be a foster placement. This isn’t so bad but Mr. Poppy’s brother announces that as neither he nor the boy have a family or home, they will need to get themselves adopted. Aside from the fact that you wouldn’t family-find for a child who is looking to be reunited with their father nor for a grown man, the film’s handling of the next steps is insensitive to say the least. According to a very facetious scene, children get to interview potential adopters and ask them ridiculous questions. As we know, potential adoptees are not offered such a say, if any, in their future parents and to suggest they are and that the process is so superficial felt distasteful at best. One question asked is: “If you adopt us, who will be your favourite?” to which the potential adopters point to their birth child as if to say “obviously her.”

I couldn’t help feeling the whole idea of adoption was laughed at and demeaned.

To compound it all, the adopters all say no to the pair and Mr Poppy’s brother announces they are homeless and will need to sleep on the streets. I know that our Care system has its flaws but suggesting to fostered children that all potential parents could reject them and leave them to live alone and outdoors is at least triggering and at most the stuff of their nightmares.

By this point we have a picture of children in Care as being unloved, rejected at every turn and destined for a life on the streets. I suppose if the film were about being in Care and raising awareness of some of the issues experienced by care leavers, this might be appropriate but it would need to be balanced by success stories, permanence and safety. I definitely don’t think that the message we have received is the one we want to give to young people in Care at Christmas, of whom there are thousands who, like other children, will want to see the film.

I can see that Nativity Rocks is trying to be inclusive and representative of all different types of families, which is laudable, but unfortunately a great deal is lost in the execution and the refugee issues are somewhat conflated with the Care issues. The Refugee is eventually happily reunited with his father but as the storylines are so confused, the film rather suggests that any child who has been separated from their birth families could be reunited with them, if they try hard enough. Again, not an appropriate message for children grieving the loss of their birth families or an appropriate message for non-care experienced children who will go away thinking adoption is a temporary solution to having accidentally misplaced a parent.

Such inaccuracies are irresponsible, especially in a high budget production that will be seen by thousands.

At another point, Mr. Poppy’s brother and the young refugee go home with a little boy who has a very affluent background. They stay there without the boy’s parents knowing but once they’re discovered, the Social Worker asks if they can stay because, you know, who gives two hoots about paperwork or approval or checking adults are safe.

The problems come thick and fast. Not only do we have all the above to contend with but the Social Worker is portrayed as hapless. Her father refers to her having “lost one before” as though mislaying a child in her Care would be amusing. She goes on to ‘lose’ the young refugee (oh how we raise our eyebrows and titter) and then a dog, which is apparently similar to losing a child.

I know that as a viewer of any film I should expect artistic licence and the impossible to become possible. If you can imagine it, anything can become real in a film. I’m all for that and some factual incongruities or inaccuracies wouldn’t be enough to bother me. What concerns me is when something is so inaccurate or portrayed in such a skewed fashion as to become harmful. I fear that’s what happened in this film. I feel the potential for re-traumatisation or the risk of worry or upset is far higher than necessary, especially in a film which sets out to entertain and spread Christmas cheer. For those it won’t upset, it will do nothing to improve their knowledge and understanding of the Care process.

Aside from the clumsy content, there are themes of loss and separation running throughout the film which could alone be enough to upset our children.

For me, the handling of adoption and fostering themes was catastrophically bad. Grizzly is usually fairly immune to the odd inappropriate comment but he was pretty outraged too. We were genuinely bemused as to how the film got approved. I’ve no idea who researched it but I don’t think they tried very hard – I certainly don’t think they spoke to anybody even remotely involved with the Care System. In my opinion, this is not one for fostered or adopted children or children who are separated from their families for any other reason. It’s a shame because the film is quite funny in places and Big Bear in particular was pleased about the rock music aspects. Little Bear liked parts of it but there were several bits that made Grizzly and I feel very uncomfortable to be watching it with him. He didn’t say anything but he did ask to play with one of our phones half way through and we let him because of the content. Sometimes with him it percolates and the questions might come later or the worries might come out through his behaviour.

Overall, an insensitive, badly-handled and ill-informed film that perpetuates harmful myths about children in Care. Nativity Rocks unfortunately doesn’t rock and I’m left wondering what on earth they were thinking.

 

Re-visiting the CPR

Last week Little Bear was really struggling. We’d had a lovely first 4 or 5 weeks of the summer holiday and then suddenly there was a sea-change. Little Bear was just so angry. He could barely contain himself. A request like ‘please tidy the game away’ led to ten minutes of growling, gritted teeth and very elaborate deep breathing. He hated me several times per day and called me an ‘idiot’ countless times. It was obvious something was the matter but it was difficult to say what. With it being a week or so before school starting again I assumed it was anxiety for that.

On the Friday, Big Bear was busy doing something else so Little Bear and I had a day out on our own. It was one of those trips where I wasn’t really feeling it because I knew it could be a really difficult day and sitting around watching TV seemed quite a lot more appealing. However, having now been Little Bear’s mum for three years, I also knew that he needed that day out. He needed me to show him that I still really loved him and wanted to be with him, of my own choosing, despite him having a rotten week and being less than pleasant to me. I took a deep breath, reminded myself there were only a few more days before I got Five Minutes Peace and off we went.

We didn’t get off to a brilliant start because the road we usually use was shut so I had to turn around and go another way. In his fragile state this really bothered Little Bear. He announced the day was ruined and we should just go home. He protested all the way there that we now had to drive on a motorway and he hated motorways. Apparently it was the worst day ever.

However, once we were there, we had fun. We played at the park and because there was only he and I, it was easy to trail him and just follow him wherever he fancied going. We saw animals, went on a little train, had a go on an inflatable slide. We’d brought a picnic and I was surprised that Little Bear wasn’t in a hurry to eat and go. He wanted to hang out on the rug for a while so he played on my phone and we snuggled. It was lovely and I guiltily thought about my feelings from before we came out. We had ice cream and painted some pottery.

When Little Bear got tired we headed for home. Then, boom! In the car: an unexpected life story chat. A big one this time. Could this have been behind his behaviour all week?

Little Bear was thinking in particular about his birth siblings whom we only have annual Letterbox contact with. We have talked about them before and looked at their pictures but then months go by and Little Bear doesn’t say anything and I wonder whether he has remembered any of the chats. Well, he has. He’s remembered everything and I suspect he ruminates on it all a lot more than he lets on.

He told me he had been dreaming about them which is interesting because I recently read that our pre-verbal memories can appear in our dreams. He told me he misses them and got tearful. It was hard trying to explain why he can’t see them. I told him about Letterbox for the first time though and I think this year he will be able to get involved.

I was hit with a realisation: we might need to explore changing our contact agreements going forwards. It isn’t really ok that he can’t see his siblings, is it? To some extent we have been able to pretend they don’t exist – out of sight out of mind. Little Bear has previously not mentioned them or shown any understanding of who they are so that seemed ok. Although, really, it isn’t ok. They are his siblings. They do exist and now he has a sense that they should be together.

I feel it’s imperative that we listen to him and that, if necessary, we are willing to challenge current arrangements. The message from adult adoptees is loud and clear: listen to us, do not deny us our roots. I think for us to be the best parents to Little Bear we can be, we need to be willing to listen to what he wants, even if it is difficult or inconvenient for us.

Grizzly and I had a big chat later on. It would be easy to react immediately and to try to set the ball rolling. However, there are many things that need to be considered. Allowing direct contact with Little Bear’s siblings could risk leading their birth parents right to us. At the moment, being anonymous and in an unknown location feels important. What could be the possible consequences of taking that risk? It’s hard to say and near impossible to predict with the information we have.

Also, it is very difficult to communicate the difference between an idea and the reality of a situation to a 6 year old. Meeting the siblings would be a huge deal. I know he sort of remembers them but they would essentially be strangers and it could be extremely overwhelming for him. At this stage he wouldn’t be able to tell you which name went with which person. Perhaps a bit more of a connection needs to be built first.

For now we are going to hold the nugget of the idea in mind. We’ll involve Little Bear in Letterbox and, happily, we’ll be able to give him the reply this time. I think we’ll see how that goes before we jump in any further.

That was only part of the big conversation though. The enormous question of ‘why did my birth mum want to give me away?’ reared its head for the first time. I explained she hadn’t wanted to and how it all works. I very quickly exhausted the basic narrative that has covered his questions so far: your birth parents weren’t good at looking after children. Then I had another realisation: if he asked me more questions about details of exactly what happened I might not be able to answer them very well. My memory of the details (beyond the content of his Life Story Book) was fuzzy to say the least. If anything, I’m guilty of creating some sort of weird rose-tinted view of his birth parents. I have them painted as a victim of their circumstances and that they hadn’t actively done much wrong. I had even got to the point of wondering why the children had been removed when they were trying their best.

My strange little internal view of them was at odds with what I know about how child protection services work. It didn’t stack up. So I realised I had better go back to the paperwork and refresh my memory of the details of what really happened.

So that’s how Grizzly and I ended up sitting here, in our pyjamas, on a Friday night, when most people are out-out or watching Netflix, pouring over Little Bear’s CPR (Child Permanence Report – the lengthy report you are given about your adoptive child that gives the full history of how they ended up in Care).

It was much worse than I remembered.

I haven’t read it for more than 3 years and when I read it last time, I hadn’t even met Little Bear. I suspect that what I looked for in it was quite different to my current viewpoint. Then, I was alert to how many times he’d moved, what things had specifically happened to him, whether mum used drugs or alcohol. I suppose I was looking for red flags. I probably didn’t pay too much attention to the bits about his siblings because they weren’t going to be adopted. Because Little Bear was the youngest, there wasn’t a lot about him specifically in the report. However, now that I’m reading a report about my youngest son, not a child I haven’t met yet, I’m attuned to other clues. This time, I wanted to get an idea of his birth parents (an accurate one) and what the home environment was really like. I needed to know about the reality of their day to day lives. Who are these people? How do they tick? What were the risks back then? What are the risks likely to be now?

The picture I now have of them is much less rosy, let’s just say that.

This time I paid much more attention to the siblings – what had they been through, how were they likely to be coping now? The thing is that they aren’t just random children who don’t matter to us; they are our son’s siblings. They do matter. In fact, the journey of one in particular is hard to read and it was the bits about them at which I cried, not any of the bits about Little Bear.

I don’t think the birth parents can really change to any dramatic degree. I don’t think they have the capacity to change the things that would make a difference. Things for the siblings though are very much subject to change. A lot is going to depend on the care and guidance they have now. They could be a product of their earlier childhoods or they may have been able to overcome that early adversity. They could gravitate back to birth parents or take their lives on a completely opposing course. We don’t know. I don’t know if we’ll ever know but if we go down the route of increasing contact, we’ll need to ask some questions. There is certainly a fine balance between giving your child access to their past and keeping them safe in the present and future.

For the first time I feel the weight of responsibility of being a custodian of Little Bear’s story. The choices we make now and the things we do or don’t do could have a huge impact on how Little Bear will feel about being adopted in the future. I read so much about adoptees feeling marginalised and misunderstood that obviously I want to avoid the mistakes they feel were made for them. At the same time, I feel the pain of their adopters who no doubt wracked their brains and their hearts, as we do, trying their best to figure out what the right decisions are.

 

*I have absolutely no idea how I managed to create a rose-tinted view of LB’s birth parents. Perhaps it was subconsciously more palatable? Either way, I can highly recommend revisiting the CPR at moments of doubt, even if I was haunted by some of the information for a couple of days afterwards.

 

Ensuring Children’s Speech and Language Needs Are Met: A Call to Action

As most of you know I am a speech and language therapist and my son, Little Bear, has Developmental Language Disorder   (DLD) so it is no surprise that meeting children’s communication needs is kind of a big deal for me. A recent report has come out reviewing speech and language therapy services for children and the findings are a little damning. It is called Bercow10 as it is written by John Bercow (of MP and having-a-bit-of- a-naughty-wife fame) in partnership with ICAN and the RCSLT and is a follow up to the original Bercow report which was written 10 years ago. It is a very important document and I want to share some salient points with you. As many of my readers are involved with adoption in some way, I am going to focus in particular on the bits of the report that are relevant for looked after children, children with mental health needs and children who become involved with youth offending. However, this is something that EVERYBODY needs to know about so please don’t look away, even if you don’t have any obvious connections to the content.

The report begins with an important message: “The most fundamental life skill for children is the ability to communicate” but it goes on to say that “as a nation, we have yet to grasp the significance of this”. This certainly seems to be the case as there are more than 1.4 million children in the UK with speech, language or communication needs (SLCN) yet it is not something we really hear talked about and most people have never heard of DLD despite it being one of the most common disorders of childhood. We hear a lot about the ‘obesity epidemic’ as it has a physical impact on children and a financial impact on the country. Bercow says that SLCN has a developmental impact on children as well as a social and economic impact and should similarly be considered an issue of public health. Being as SLCN impacts upon a child’s education, social, emotional and mental health and their future life chances it is a much bigger issue than it is given credence for.

A good starting point is to raise awareness of SLCN and what that means and what it looks like. If you want to know more about how Little Bear has been impacted by his language difficulties, see these previous blog posts: Living with Speech and Language Difficulties, Communication Difficulties: Update

Children from disadvantaged backgrounds, whether that is due to social disadvantage or maltreatment, are disproportionately affected by SLCN: in some areas as many as 50% of children have language disorder and Looked After Children have poorer language on school entry compared to those who are not Looked After. Children considered high-risk for harm, such as those on a Child Protection Order face a higher risk of SLCN as do children who live with domestic violence. Across the care system as a whole, 63% of children have SLCN, compared to 10% in the non-care experienced population. This makes our most vulnerable children even more vulnerable to poor life outcomes. Children with SLCN in early years are twice as likely to develop social, emotional and behavioural difficulties and are at greater risk of depression or anxiety. Children with poor vocabularies are twice as likely to be unemployed as adults compared to those with age-appropriate language skills.

The statistics are pretty scary. What is also very worrying and makes my heart break a little is that many children’s difficulties are missed or misdiagnosed. Studies have shown that 81% of children with social, emotional or behavioural difficulties, including those with conduct disorder or ADHD have significant undiagnosed SLCN. If we extrapolate that a little, the picture seems even worse. These children, who cannot learn in school (because the curriculum is not accessible to them and teaching is not differentiated for them), often go on to engage is risky behaviours – drug-taking, crime etc. and unfortunately many will go on to find themselves in the youth justice system. Another study shows that 60% of children in the youth justice service have low language skills, often lower than an average 11 year old. Imagine having to be interviewed and appear in court when you cannot access classroom language let alone legal jargon. Many of these young people are then expected to engage with various programmes to aid with their rehabilitation. Statistics suggest that 40% of young people cannot access the content of these ‘verbally mediated interventions’ due to their language difficulties.

If children do not get their needs identified at any early stage and do not receive the therapy they require, the consequences can be dire. This is what Bercow means when he talks about social and economic impact. I think this particularly upsets me because had life been a little different for Little Bear, he could all too easily have fallen victim to this pattern. His behaviour did come before him and had we not been able to see beyond that and not recognised his DLD (and developmental trauma), things could have been very different. Before Little Bear was adopted at the age of 3 and a half, although there was a vague indication in his paperwork that he might have some language delay, he had not been formally assessed by a speech and language therapist. I was shocked at the severity of his communication needs the first time I met him and his language was later assessed as being more than 2 years delayed. I’m not quite sure what other signs would have been needed for a referral to have been triggered but he was certainly at risk of falling through the cracks.

I think there are two key things here. Firstly, if a child is presenting with social, emotional or behavioural difficulties, they should have a speech and language assessment as a matter of course. Behaviour itself is a communication and people in general need to get much better at looking beyond it. The second thing is that other professionals need to become more knowledgeable about SLCN; teachers, health visitors, the police etc. all need to be aware of the ‘red flags’ and seek help to prevent life escalating away from vulnerable children.

The bleak picture I’m painting could possibly all come good if there were excellent speech and language therapy services available to meet need once children were referred. However Bercow is pretty damning about this too. There continues to be a post-code lottery when it comes to availability and quality of services: of all the 2500 respondents, only 15% felt services were available as necessary. More than 50% of people had waited longer than 6 months to receive the therapy they needed and 34% had waited more than a year. This is a statistic I can empathise with as we had to wait over 8 months for Little Bear to be seen for the first time and a year for therapy to begin (see A bit of a rant).

This isn’t good enough. I was lucky to have my professional knowledge to fall back on and could begin helping Little Bear from day one. However, most adopters or foster carers do not have that level of knowledge and couldn’t be expected to. A year is too long to wait for a child who has already been neglected and needs immediate support. Due to Little Bear’s behaviour, our adoption began at crisis point. Thankfully we were able to identify there was a communication element to his needs, as well as developmental trauma, and could begin to tackle it. As most adopters do not happen also to be speech therapists, they would be unlikely to be pre-armed with the knowledge and strategies required. The impact of not receiving support in a timely fashion could be catastrophic.

Our story does provide some good news though, thankfully. The thing is that when quality speech and language therapy is provided, it is extremely effective (see Speech Therapy Works). Despite starting pre-school at the level of a 16 month old across all areas of development, with communication being one of the most difficult areas for Little Bear, by the age of 6 his language levels had improved to within the expected range for his age. Admittedly he received a high level of input, both at home, in clinic and at school but that input was effective. Our story shows that as bleak as this situation seems to be, it doesn’t need to be hopeless. If change can be brought about, services can be improved and awareness can be raised, we can literally transform lives.

Bercow 10 doesn’t just highlight problems, it makes practical recommendations for change under the following headings: communication is crucial; a strategy for system change; an accessible and equitable service for all families; support that makes an impact; early identification and intervention are essential. You can read the full recommendations document here: Bercow10 recommendations

And if you are feeling very keen, you can read the whole report here (it’s really well written and a lot more accessible than I expected): Bercow10 whole report

What can you do to improve outcomes for children?

In order for change to happen, people need to know about the current situation. They need to know about Bercow 10 and its contents. @GillianRudd has begun a petition to bring discussion of Bercow10 to the government to ask them to ensure the implementation of the recommendations so that children’s communication needs can finally be met appropriately. 10,000 signatures are needed for the government to respond to the petition and 100,000 for it to be considered for debate in Parliament. You could help by signing the petition and asking one person you know to sign it too. Just follow this link: petition

Please share this post far and wide to get the message out there.

It is essential that schools, health visitors, psychologists, CAMHS services, doctors and the Police know about Bercow10. Could you share the link with your child’s school or other professional?

If you want to get even more involved than that, see the Calls to Action section of the website: Calls to Action 

Thank you very much in advance for signing petitions and sharing etc. Change has to happen.

 

 

*This post is based on my personal reading and interpretation of the Bercow10 report. If you want to know the sources of my statistics, please see the report.