>A lot of people in the UKwould feel outrage at a PAPs hovering around in the delivery theater andcompleting an adoption in less than 10 days.


Any outrage, Robin, for the woman who very much wants the adoptive parents of
her child to accompany her in the delivery room but having the government nanny
tell her no, she cannot be trusted to make decisions in such matters?

I didn't think so.


P2P

Palms2pines wrote:
A lot of people in the UK would feel outrage at a PAPs hovering around in the delivery theater and completing an adoption in less than 10 days. Any outrage, Robin, for the woman who very much wants the adoptive parents ofher child to accompany her in the delivery room but having the government nannytell her no, she cannot be trusted to make decisions in such matters?I didn't think so.P2P


That is not something that has been a part adoption in England for very
many years if ever. The only case where "adoptive" parents might be
present at the birth is where it is a surrogacy arrangement and they or
at least one of them is a genetic parent of the child. It appears to me
that the British press made an assumption that it was a surrogacy when
Miliband first released his press release saying that he had been
present at the birth. I believe that when they started asking awkward
questions he realised he had been somewhat naïve in revealing that
information and suddenly it became "a private matter".

I don't think Americans quite understand the political process in
Britain and the need for complete trust and confidence in ministers and
MPs if that is to work successfully. I would have thought that would
have been illustrated by the Blunkett affair. Once such doubts have been
cast a politician's position becomes untenable. Unless he is prepared to
answer questions in parliament about the nature of this adoption I would
not trust Miliband in the future. I am someone who does communicate with
government minister on adoption related matters both on my own behalf
and for clients. In my opinion this will also undermine confidence in
the department concerned with international adoption.

Adoption is a very different thing here than it is in the USA. Adoption
in England is service for children who are in need of a family. It is
not a service for those who feel they absolutely must start their family
with a newborn, there are currently 5200 children awaiting adoption in
England & Wales. Very rarely is a child placed with the eventual
adoptive parents until it is at least six weeks old. Unfortunately there
are some in my opinion for whom adoption is not considered early enough.
But PAPs in delivery room, no one with experience of adoption of old in
the 60s and 70s wants that here, thankyou.

What would a mother who has had her child removed from her and placed
for adoption make of a situation where she needed parliamentary
representation and finds that she has to seek that representation from
Mr Miliband? Should Mr Miliband find himself in a ministerial position
connected with adoption, what confidence are those who seek a
ministerial decision on their individual case going to have in Mr
Miliband the man who went to the USA to avoid being in their situation?
Certainly this will limit his political remit.

"Palms2pines" <palms2pines@aol.comh8spam> wrote in message
news:20050109122602.11044.00000013@mb-m02.aol.com...A lot of people in the UKwould feel outrage at a PAPs hovering around in the delivery theater andcompleting an adoption in less than 10 days. Any outrage, Robin, for the woman who very much wants the adoptive parents of her child to accompany her in the delivery room but having the government nanny tell her no, she cannot be trusted to make decisions in such matters? I didn't think so. P2P

Whyu would any woman want anybody to watch her perform such a disgusting
task. Better to go out in the woods by herself.

Marley

Robin writes:
Adoption is a very different thing here than it is in the USA. Adoption=20in England is service for children who are in need of a family. It is=20not a service for those who feel they absolutely must start their family =>>

Which means what, exactly? You need your thinking cap refitted if you think
government has managed to squelch the desire to adopt newborns in the UK. It
sounds as if you are saying a newborn cannot possibly be a child in need of a
home. Delaying adoption to avoid offending your purported English sensibilities
doesn't change anything about adoption, except to create a potentially harmful
extended state of limbo for children whose bio parents cannot or will not care
for them. Is this progress? You Brits can pat yourselfs on the back on day
about delaying adoptions until after a child has spent a sufficient amount of
time in state care but eventually you might recognize that government-forcing
of relinquishment and government prohibiting of relinquishment are just two
sides of the same quid. It's government barging into people's living rooms
uninvited.


P2P

Palms2pines wrote:
Robin writes:Adoption is a very different thing here than it is in the USA. Adoption=20in England is service for children who are in need of a family. It is=20not a service for those who feel they absolutely must start their family =>>Which means what, exactly?


You seem to have edited what I have written.

You need your thinking cap refitted if you thinkgovernment has managed to squelch the desire to adopt newborns in the UK.


Most people have got the idea that infant adoption as it was practiced
between 1927 and 1983 was wrong. That's why it has changed. If everyone
here thought that the immediate adoption of neonates at birth by paps
hovering in the delivery room having been introduced for a hefty fee by
Marcy Meshes type facilitators were a good thing, then I'm sure that
would have emerged in the extensive public consultation process over the
last six years. But it didn't.

It sounds as if you are saying a newborn cannot possibly be a child in need of ahome.


Apart from the few rare cases where it is obvious that the natural
mother can not or will not parent the child from the outset then it is
thought best that a child be raised by its natural mother. I don't think
they always get that right, but I don't think it is good idea to remove
a child for adoption at birth either. I work with too many mothers that
had that happen to them in the past and I work with too many adopted
people who have been damaged by that kind of adoption in era when one in
every 30 live births in England & Wales ended in an adoption.
Delaying adoption to avoid offending your purported English sensibilities

It has little to do with my sensibilities, all manner of committees have
sat all sorts of research by government appointed bodies have been done
and reported over many years it has then been debated for many days in
Parliament. If my sensibilities were entirely to the contrary that would
have made not an iota of difference. The only area of adoption
legislation where I was listened to amongst many others, was in the
retention of entirely open birth records for future adoption and in
giving birth relatives a right to have a search made for adoptees to
ascertain their wishes with regard to contact.

doesn't change anything about adoption, except to create a potentially harmfulextended state of limbo for children whose bio parents cannot or will not carefor them.


Official policy according to BAAF remains: "Where pre-birth counselling
has taken place and the mother/parents confirm after the birth, their
desire for the child to be placed for adoption, relinquished newborn
infants should be placed with their intended adoptive families from
hospital wherever this is possible". Note, "confirm after the birth"
not also that does not include having prospective adoptive parents
hanging about in the delivery room at the time of the birth.
Is this progress? You Brits can pat yourselfs on the back on dayabout delaying adoptions until after a child has spent a sufficient amount oftime in state care but eventually you might recognize that government-forcingof relinquishment and government prohibiting of relinquishment are just twosides of the same quid. It's government barging into people's living roomsuninvited.


I'm not aware of any prohibition on relinquishment made by the British
government or by any of the regional assemblies that might have that
power, you'll have to point out to me the exact statute that you are
referring to. However less than two hundred mothers do relinquish at
birth each year, in a state where they do not feel compelled to do so
and where various state benefits will be available to them.


For what it is worth I believe we may be veering too closely to what has
occurred in parts of Australia where women who really should relinquish
at birth are talked out of doing so, and those children re-appear in the
system several years down line as difficult to place older children. I
don't however feel that in any way would justify us having a
commercialised American type system of infant adoption.

Robin