Senin, 14 Februari 2011

Adoptees to access identifying information important

Kinship

This week I read "Adoption, Identity, and Kinship: the Debate Over Sealed Birth Records" by Dr. Katrina Wegar, published in 1997. Wegar is an Adult Adoptee born/adopted in Finland. Finland was one of the first countries to allow Adult Adoptees to access identifying information. Wegar's experience as an Adult Adoptee in a country that allows access as well as sociologist who does not see any of the problems in her home country that are alleged by U.S. anti-rights groups as inevitable to occur if American adoptees are allowed access, has urged her to examine the records debate in the U.S.

Her book gives a good overview of history, although there are certain points here and there where other sources I've read would disagree with when and why records were sealed. She provides a glimpse into feminist perspective as well as the perspective of Sociologists and Social Workers. She believes that both Adoptee Rights Activists and anti-rights groups present arguments that further stigmatize adoptees. If you read her book, you may notice that she refers to the Adoptee Rights Movement as "the search movement." It refers to search, in-general, as the search for one's origins. I believe that because so many anti-rights groups use the adoptee stereotype of "searching, finding, and disrupting" in their arguments against "Adoptee Rights" that the term "Adoptee Rights" is more preferable, to me.

Wegar writes on the importance of sharing one's own personal narrative:
"Autobiographical accounts have been instrumental in the mobilization of the search movement, and their human-interest potential and cultural resonance have attracted publicity in the media. By revealing the personal quandaries of adoptees who have been denied the opportunity to search for their biological origins, search activists have presented a picture of American adoption that stands in stark contrast to the positive image traditionally presented by adoption agencies and child welfare organizations. They have also described for the first time the institution of adoption from the viewpoint of the adopted (Wegar, 1997, p. 74).
This quote, for me, is similar in explaining why I write as the "why I write" quote is at the top, right-hand corner of my blog. Adult Adoptees speaking for themselves is very important and so is others lending a listening ear. When I talk Adoptee Rights with other people, I generally explain how records came to be sealed and then explain why it is a problem. It is hard for people who do not know much about adoption, other than stereotypes and usually in a positive sense, to grasp a concept of adoption where people are not happy. It is the adoptee experience to often be scolded for voicing something about adoption that sounds negative as if they're being "negative people." Au contrare, secrecy and inequalityare negative; period.

Photo credit: jscreationzs

Senin, 07 Februari 2011

ICA seems more favorable than TRA of American children is based on issues of race, class, and gender

Inter-Country Adoption and Adoptive Parent Motives & Preferences


This was the study I had posted about before for those that are interested, I've blogged a little article summary/analysis (more summary than analysis, I am tired today).

The study sought to determine why adopting parents pursuing Transracial Adoption (TRA) might prefer Inter-Country Adoption (ICA) rather than domestic adoption. While ICA rates have increased in the past 20 years, so have the amount of children in the U.S. foster care system. The Authors noted that, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (2007), less than 10% of White women "adopt across racial lines" (Zhang and Lee, 2010, p 2.). When they do adopt across racial lines, they are "five times more likely to adopt children of other [than African American] races" (p. 2). The authors propose that adopting parents preferences are "embedded in an intersection of larger discourses of race, class and gender (referencing Dorow, 2006)" (Zhang & Lee, 2010, p.2).

The literature review of the study I found intriguing. Going over previous literature and studies, the authors of this study hypothesized that the reasons that ICA seems more favorable than TRA of American children is based on issues of race, class, and gender. The reviewed literature covered topics such as the "enduring boundaries (p. 4) between the Black and White communities in the U.S. and the disapproval in the Black community of White individuals adopting Black children as possible contributing factors as to why ICA seems to be more favored among Adoptive Parents. Mentioning that fewer newborn babies are available for adoption in the U.S. the authors referenced other literature and research that addressed Adoptive Parent preferences for age and gender as possible contributing factors as well. Referencing the Census Bureau (2003), the authors stated that adopting women tend to prefer girls and "[m]any babies waiting to be adopted internationally are girls. For example, girls account for 95% of children waiting for adoption in china" (Zhang & Lee, 2010, p. 5). As for adopting parent preferences for children of younger ages:

"Half of all ICAs involve infants less than 1 year old, and 90% of children adopted aged less than 5 years (Fisher, 2003). In contrast, only 6% of children adopted in 2005 in the foster system were less than 1 year old, and less than 30% were younger the age of 5 years (Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, 2007)"
(Zhang and Lee, 2010, p.5, their citations included in the quote).


The authors also noted literature that discussed that ICA may be an easier process, the closed-nature of ICA vs. the increasing trend toward openness in adoption in the U.S., and the fear that the original parents of an adopted child born in the U.S. would change their minds, may contribute to the why adopting parents would choose ICA vs. TRA of a child born in the U.S.

The study consisted of asking in-depth, open-ended questions to 10 families in Ohio over the course of 3 years. 6 families adopted through ICA and four were of TRA through domestic adoption.

The study found some major themes in motivations to adopt were consistent with many of the variables noted in the literature review. Variables such as infertility, wait time, age preference for child, etc.

The authors concluded that TRA domestic adoption was perceived by many who pursued ICA to have more disadvantages. They noted that it seemed as though ICA was viewed in terms of cultural differences that might be fun to learn and incorporate in the family, whereas, TRA domestic adoption was "phrased in terms of social problems such as possible parental drug addiction and adverse neighborhood influences on child development" (Zhang & Lee, 2010, p. 20).

The authors indicated that more research was needing involving a broader, more representative, and more diverse sample of Adoptive Parents.

Reference:

Yuanting, Z., & Lee, G. R. (2011). Intercountry Versus Transracial Adoption: Analysis of Adoptive Parents’ Motivations and Preferences in Adoption. Journal of Family Issues, 32(1), 75-98. doi:10.1177/0192513X10375410

Minggu, 06 Februari 2011

Nobody’s child (The Himalayan Times)

By Prakriti Pathak -January 30, 2011

The international adoption trade is a booming multibillion-dollar industry, as families in the west increasingly adopt more babies from developing countries. Nepal, it seems does not want to miss out on this global opportunity.

In 2007, Nepal adoption alter it faced pressure and severe criticism from national and international media over allegations of corruption and children being sold. In addition, the report, Adopting the Rights of a Child prepared by the UNICEF and the Swiss-based child relief agency foundation Terre des hommes revealed instances of children and babies being put up for adoption without the parents’ consent. As a result, the United States and a number of European countries like the United Kingdom, Denmark, France, Norway, Spain, Canada, Italy, Switzerland and Germany banned adoption from Nepal.

In 2008, Nepal promptly reopened inter-country adoption and in 2009, signed the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Cooperation in respect to inter-country adoption. With an objective of ratifying the Hague Convention, the Ministry of Women, Children and Social Welfare (MoWCSW) formed a high level committee on May 14, 2010. Later in December 2010, new policies were introduced to facilitate the inter-country adoption process. “To discuss inter-country adoption, a team is heading to Italy in the first week of March, where all the European countries are expected to meet and most probably European countries will agree on adopting children from Nepal,” says Sher Jung Karki, under secretary at MoWCSW.

The optimism and speed to get things back on track is surprising. If only such promptness and dedication was displayed by our government in tackling much bigger issues that have almost brought Nepal to a standstill. What’s odd is the fact that while the government is going the whole hog to encourage international adoption, it has done precious little to even facilitate domestic adoption within Nepal and the vagueness of laws and provisions are often seen as a deterrent.

“The government is more focused on inter-country adoption, introducing new rules and regulations repeatedly and has completely neglected domestic adoption. Many factors are responsible for pushing the inter-country adoption but ’capital ’ is the main factor as lo reign countries have to pay hefty amount to adopt Nepali children and even with the new policies, there may still be space for irregularities,” says a source at the same ministry.

Interestingly, there is no data or any information on domestic adoption at the ministry. When a country neglects domestic adoption and focuses solely on inter-country adoption, it raises many questions. The answers themselves are not very hard to figure out. “We welcome recent improvements announced by the ministry but they are focused solely on inter-country adoption. Local solutions should be developed as a priority in line with international commitment”, says Joseph Aguettant, country representative of Terre des hommes in Nepal. He further added that local solutions include kinship, foster care and domestic adoption. Recently, Terre des hommes has been involved in promoting domestic adoption in mid-western regions in collaboration with Social Welfare Council, the local administration and NGOs. Besides creating a new mindset, the task involves deciphering the existing laws which are vague and need simplification.

“Nepal lacks adoption law and domestic adoption has not been fully practiced in Nepal yet. Though it is mentioned in Muluki Ain (Country Code), the process is vague and lengthy,” says Lochan Regmi of Central child Welfare Council. According to the Code, domestic adoption can be done by adoption can be done by relatives. But through various amendments, now any Nepali can adopt a child. “Though the horizon for domestic adoption has expanded, it is impractical and unscientific. There is no mention of the process for domestic adoption as the concerned body is busy regularly updating the policies of inter-country adoption,” says Rudra Kandangwa, advocate and chairman of Children Home Federation.

According to advocates and people involved in children’s homes to encourage domestic adoption, the government has to simplify the rules and laws. In the absence of proper and clear laws for domestic adoption, children’s homes are making their own. Aasha Shrestha, in charge of planning and sponsorship section of Bal Mandir says, Nepalis wanting to adopt a child legally from Bal Mandir have to fulfil a list of requirements.

Couples have to submit citizenship certificates, medical certificates to prove their infertility approved from Nepal Medical Board, marriage certificates, character certificates, details of economic status including land papers and bank balances, letters of consent from their family members, letter from authorized doctor proving the couple free from diseases like HIV; Hepatitis and mental illness. In addition to these, the age difference between the to-be adopted child and prospective parents should be not less than 35 and not more than 55 years. After completing all the required documents, they have to register the adoption case at the Land Revenue Office. According to her, Nepali children can gel genuine homes in Nepal rather than in other countries. But that is only possible if the government places the rights of orphans above all other issues.

To facilitate families and homes for orphans should be the priority. Whether in Nepal or abroad is secondary. Shrestha says the ministry’s priorities are misplaced; the concerned body should encourage domestic adoption rather than just aiming to maximize revenues from adopting parents from foreign countries. Till date, there is not a single child home in Nepal with the sole objective of promoting domestic adoption in Nepal.

The irony is that the ministry has all the data related to inter-country adoption but nothing on domestic adoption. Domestic adoption is supposed to be handled by the Land Revenue Office. However, many officers at the office itself were unaware about this fact. According to Beni Madhav Bhattarai, under secretary at the Ministry of Land Reform and Management, there is zero record maintained of domestic adoption and he argues that MoWCSW is the concerned body for both inter-country and domestic adoption.

When domestic adoption is not promoted serious questions arise. What kind of ‘New Nepal’ are we building in which our orphans have no place and no rights in their own country? For a country emerging from civil war and on the path to reconciliation, is our society not open to adoption and reaching out to orphans? Are Nepal’s orphans only worth the foreign exchange they bring in? What exactly is the government’s commitment and arrangements for orphans in this country?

Presently commitment is not visible. Orphans are housed in private children’s homes till they are exported to western families. These homes receive no financial assistance and hence little monitoring from the government. Over 198 of these children’s homes are far below the minimum standards. “The children’s homes that are not running in accordance with the government’s minimum standards should be shut down to ensure rights and the best interest of children,” says Gauri Pradhan, member of National Human Rights Commission of Nepal.

When contacted, even the minister for Women, Children and Social Welfare, Sarwadev Prasad Ojha admitted that “domestic adoption is unsystematic and major steps have to be taken to promote it”. Then he hands us the age-old diplomatic line. ’’A team will be set up to make the new guidelines for domestic adoption."


From:



PDF copy of original article:

Childabuse within Adoptive Families goes across boarders

Uproar over adopted boy's punishment

Video aired on 'Dr. Phil' in November

Updated: Friday, 04 Feb 2011, 7:17 AM EST
Published : Friday, 04 Feb 2011, 7:16 AM EST

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) - Russian officials are closely watching a case involving an Anchorage mother of six who was charged with child abuse after a video that aired on "Dr. Phil" showed her punishing her adopted Russian son by squirting hot sauce into his mouth and forcing him into a cold shower.

The case has sparked a public uproar in Russia at a time that nation is nearing completion of a bilateral treaty with the U.S. on adoptions. Russia called for the agreement following the deaths of Russian children who were abused or neglected by their adoptive American parents in recent years.

Russian officials say they have not ruled out pushing for the return of the 7-year-old boy to his native country should his adoptive mother, Jessica Beagley, be found guilty.

"This video caused a huge wave of outrage in Russia," said Andrey Bondarev of the Russian Consulate in Seattle. "We're going to pay attention because this behavior is absolutely unacceptable."

Beagley's attorney, meanwhile, maintains she is a caring mother who submitted the video to the show because she genuinely wanted help.

The boy and his fraternal twin brother remain in the home with Beagley, her husband and their four biological children. Bondarev, who twice visited the family, said he saw no reason to have the boys removed at this point, and neither did authorities. He said Beagley vowed to never exert that kind of discipline again.

Authorities began investigating Beagley, 36, after the video aired in November in a segment on the CBS show called "Mommy Confessions." The city charged Beagley with one misdemeanor count of child abuse last month.

She has pleaded not guilty.

The video, shot by Beagley's 10-year-old daughter, included sounds of the boy screaming behind the shower curtain and Beagley yelling about the consequences of misbehavior. It brought many in the show's audience to tears.

On the air, host Phil McGraw called Beagley's actions abusive and over the top.

Beagley is married to an Anchorage police officer who was aware of the punishment, Bondarev said. The husband, Gary Beagley, also was investigated, according to municipal prosecutor Cynthia Franklin. She declined to elaborate, saying only that he has not been charged.

On the show, Jessica Beagley said the boy acts up and lies. She said other disciplinary actions such as time-outs, spankings and soap in the mouth have had no effect on his misbehavior.

"I would definitely say that (the boy) is the biggest stress in my life," she said.

Bill Ingaldson, Beagley's attorney, declined to make his client available for an interview. He said she was on the show to seek help about the boy, who was adopted with his brother when they were 5 years old. She saw a "Dr. Phil" episode inviting frustrated parents to the show, according to her lawyer, so she wrote to producers but didn't hear back until 18 months later.

She originally sent a video showing her talking to her children about cold showers as a consequence of misbehavior, but producers wanted to see the actual discipline, Ingaldson said.

The subsequent video was made after legitimate misbehavior, and Beagley's sole motivation was to find solutions, he said.

"She's being portrayed as this evil person, which isn't at all the case," he said. "She's a really caring mom."

Show spokeswoman Stacey Luchs said producers routinely accept home videos or ask participants to tape "naturally occurring behaviors and interactions, in order to gain insight" when dealing with family dynamics.

"We were shocked by what we saw, and called for the immediate halting of this behavior and also referred, at the show's expense, both mother and child for evaluation and treatment with appropriate professionals," she told The Associated Press in an e-mail.

Yevgeniy Khorishko, a spokesman for the Russian Embassy in Washington, D.C., said his office is following the case, which has prompted many reactions in his country.

Russia and U.S. officials are concluding work on a new, binding agreement to cover adoptions between the two countries. Russia demanded such an agreement after a Tennessee adoptive mother put her 7-year-old boy on a plane back to Moscow last year, unaccompanied by an adult.

There also have been instances of severe mistreatment by American parents, Khorishko said.

"There were several cases in recent years with adopted Russian children, including the deaths, beatings and cruel attitude of the parents toward these children," he said. "We actually questioned many times our American counterparts on these issues, and we both understood that we actually need an agreement."

An estimated 17 adopted Russian children have died in instances of domestic violence in American families since 1992, according to Pavel Astakhov, Russia's government-appointed children's rights ombudsman. His office also is monitoring the Beagley case.

"Theoretically, we don't rule out that we could insist on the return of the boy to Russia. But at this point we're not going to," Astakhov said. He

suggested that could happen if the family is shown to be unfit to raise him, but he added it's too early to draw that conclusion.

___

Associated Press Writer Varya Kudryavtseva in Moscow contributed to this story.

ADOPTIVE MOM CHARGED WITH CHILD ABUSE

Video of Alaska Woman Allegedly Punishing Son by Force-Feeding Hot Sauce, Giving Cold Showers Prompts Viewers to Call Cops

(CBS) A mother in Alaska has sparked outrage for allegedly punishing her son with hot sauce and cold showers. Now, she's the one facing punishment: charges of child abuse.

CBS News Correspondent Betty Nguyen reported on "The Early Show" Thursday a disturbing home video started it all.

Jessica Beagley, a 36-year-old mother of six, is seen disciplining her adopted son by making him hold hot sauce in his mouth. The reason for the severe punishment? He'd lied.

In the video, Beagley can be heard saying, "What happens when you lie to me?" The boy answers, "I get hot sauce. You get hot sauce."

The mom asks, "What else happens when you lie to me?"

The boy answers, "I get a cold shower."

The 7-year-old, adopted from Russia, is then put into a cold shower and can be heard screaming.

The video created an emotional uproar and resulted in criminal charges.

Beagley sent the video, shot by her 10-year-old daughter, to the "Dr. Phil" show, seeking help in disciplining her child.

Read the rest of the article at CBS News

TDA - defending adoption and surrogacy under the concept of feminism ?

Are Adoption and Surrogacy Feminist?

Joy's post over at Joy's Division has me really thinking today. I had commented on Joy's blog that her experience on another blog was the first time I had ever heard of someone defending adoption and surrogacy under the concept of feminism. I'm thinking now that this isn't exactly true, I have, in a way, heard at least adoption defended with allegedly "feministic" arguments. A few months ago I, along with several others, wrote emails and letters to a feminist organization who was opposing Adoptee Rights under the claim that mothers were promised anonymity through the amending and sealing of records. I even tried appealing to one of the organization's representatives in an hour-long conversation over the phone. Their stance was appaulling, not only because they were in opposition to us but because their opposition was based on not being aware of adoption laws and policies and adoption and mother's rights in history. Promised secrecy? It was more like having secrecy forced upon them: adoptees and mothers alike.

Both adoption and surrogacy can involve ethical issues such as the commodification of children and of women's bodies. Many adoption policies and practices in the United States are absolutely antiquated and outdated. Adoption has a horrendously unethical history it has yet to offer an apology for and yet to declare an ethical plan for the present and future. In the United States, we still haven't figured out how to eliminate secrecy from these institutions or be truthful on birth documents, let a lone give these individuals equal access to truth that the rest of society receives about themselves. Women experiencing an unplanned pregnancy may still have trouble finding resources to parent, finding employment and higher education that has hours conducive to the schedules of caregivers, and finding affordable child care; adoption is hailed as the solution to this. Instead of providing women with equality and seeking to address the roadblocks that cause women to have to choose between parenting and poverty, society suggests surrendering to adoption while these societal problems still persist. Still, in this country, the losses of these individual, both the mothers and children, are still some of the most misunderstood, diminished, and dismissed losses...ever.

Because I am an Adult Adoptee and Feminist, it is a stretch for me to perceive how adoption (in this context, infant adoption) and surrogacy are feministic. I suppose people may view it as one woman getting the chance to parent while another woman has the opportunity to make the decision as to whether or not she wants to parent or would like to help someone else become a parent.

But what about the third party? The individual born/adopted, I mean. Is this yet another failure to incorporate everyone whom these institutions impact? I'll say here as I told to the feminist organization that had opposed Adoptee Rights:
"do I really need to remind a feminist organization that supports the rights of women that I AM A WOMAN TOO?"
The label "adoptee" doesn't legally nor socially allow me to grow up past the "child" label; now I'm not allowed to be viewed as a woman either? Adopted women in the United States often do not have access to medical history to make informed health care decisions for themselves and their descendants with their health care practitioners. They are unequal citizens under the law and are denied the Basic Human Right of knowledge of Original Identity and the equal right of access to factual birth documentation. They and their descendants lack geneological continuity and knowledge of their origins and ancestry. They live a different life than 98% of society; experiencing nature and nurture separately (and sometimes not having access to their natural roots at all) and it's an unacknowledged, diminished, and dismissed loss. I am sure the donor conceived individuals who read my blog could chime in. Since I was neither donor conceived nor born by surrogacy; I will not attempt to speak for them.

Read more at the TDA Blog

Selasa, 01 Februari 2011

VOLUNTARY COLONIZATION ?

Poinsette: Adopting Third World children is voluntary colonization

Freelance commentary

Oregon Daily Emerald > Opinion

By Bruce Poinsette | Freelance columnist

Published: Monday, January 31, 2011

Updated: Monday, January 31, 2011 01:01

I don't usually pay any attention to the tabloids, but one recently caught my eye in the checkout line. Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt are looking to adopt yet another child. The couple has already adopted three children from Cambodia, Ethiopia and Vietnam to go along with three children of their own.

One has to wonder how the couple is able to maintain the cultures of all these children while simultaneously assimilating them into the lifestyle of the American elite. Children, as well as adults, have the toughest time integrating into the wealthy elite of this country, which gets increasingly white and exclusive the further you go up the ladder.

Jolie and Pitt perpetuate the myth of the American "saviors." As the story goes, the generous Americans enter Third World countries, rescue children from heart-wrenching situations and turn them into prosperous U.S. citizens. The children's past and countries become distant, backwards memories.

Adopting a child from a foreign country, especially a country with internal conflict, does nothing to address the country's problems. It suggests American exceptionalism is the only solution to the world's problems and creates a cycle of dependence rather than empowerment. "Making the world a better place" is not synonymous with Americanizing it.

When you take a child from his country, make him learn your language, assimilate him into your culture and possibly give him your last name, the process should sound very familiar. It's voluntary colonization.

A couple of centuries ago they would have to put you on a boat and beat your culture out of you. Now it's as simple as dangling the carrot of American exceptionalism, even though this country is filled with xenophobia, increasing poverty and rising unemployment, especially for minorities.

Most parents adopting children, both foreign or domestically, have the best intentions in mind. They want to provide children with a better life, but when they adopt across cultural lines they are limited in how much they can impart knowledge of self to them. It is important for parents to take whatever steps they can to help their children maintain a sense of being bicultural.

For example, when a friend of mine was adopted from Poland, his parents made sure to expose him to the Polish Festival as well as a Polish school in Portland, Ore. Neither one of the parents had a culture rooted in Poland, but their conscious effort to connect their son to his culture made sure he didn't forget his history or where he came from.

Another question that needs to be asked is why the tabloids and major media outlets are quick to praise international adoptions while the plight of orphans in the U.S. is seemingly invisible?

According to the Administration for Children and Families there were 423,773 American children in foster care as of the last estimate in 2009. 114,556 of these children were on the waiting list for adoption.

Third World "made for TV" adoptions neglect the Third World conditions facing poor people in the U.S. Low-income neighborhoods are filled with crumbling infrastructure and broken schools. Teachers are more likely to dump children into special education or the corrections system than teach them how to read. This cradle-to-prison pipeline has created an atmosphere where single black and Latino mothers 18 and younger have a median wealth of $0.

It makes you wonder why the media puts such an emphasis on the Third World while there is an increasing disparity between the rich and poor at home.

Although the number of international adoptions in the U.S. has steadily declined over the last decade from its peak of 22,900 in 2004 to 12,753 in 2009, the "rescue" myth continues. The number of children in foster care has also steadily decreased over the last decade, but there are still hundreds of thousands of children in need of parents.

Black children are over-represented in the foster care system in the U.S. Although blacks make up 12 percent of the U.S. population, they make up 30 percent of the foster care population according to the ACF. Hispanics aren't far behind at 20 percent.

Recently Mississippi governor Haley Barbour rejected an invitation to an NAACP Martin Luther King Jr. Day celebration and told the group to kiss his butt and take up the issue of race with his adopted Jamaican son. While Barbour is correct in asserting that his refusal to attend doesn't make him a racist, one must wonder why he had to travel all the way to Jamaica to get himself a black child.

Some might claim this is to combat the child trafficking that occurs in poor countries, but what does it say when you "rescue" one child and watch thousands of others suffer? For example, an October report in the Miami Herald estimated more than 7,300 children have been smuggled from Haiti since the earthquake. Members of the Idaho-based New Life Children's Refuge were even arrested for transporting children who still had family to the Dominican Republic.

We have to turn our eyes to children in need at home as well as attack the root problems of poverty and joblessness abroad to truly "save the children" instead of Americanizing them.

bpoinsette@dailyemerald.com

One third breaks down and two third needs significant support by Adoption

When adoptions go wrong

One leading charity estimates that a third of adoptions break down these days. Is it any wonder when so many adoptive parents take their new children home only to find they have a secret history of appalling abuse? Bridget Freer reports

Ending an adoption illustration - When adoptions go wrong

It is not known exactly how many families have to end an adoption
Photo: MICHAEL KIRKHAM

Rachel Humphreys punches in the numbers on her phone. She is calling work, yet again, to tell them she has to take her son, Tom, to an emergency appointment and is going to be in late. She is a management consultant and over the past two years has frequently taken time off at short notice, and occasionally turned up with a black eye or other visible injuries.

'They have been fantastic,’ she says, 'but the last time it happened I also said to them, “If people like me aren’t supported, and this isn’t a success, then these children, children like Tom, are the granny-bashers of the future.” I didn’t need to spell it out.’

If she was going to spell it out, however, it would go something like this: two years ago Rachel adopted a child who,unbeknown to her, had acute emotional and psychological problems. Tom, eight, is frequently violent towards her. He needs psychological support, and Rachel also needs a lot of support. Unfortunately for Rachel, the support and understanding she gets from her employers is about as far as it goes.

Tom first came to live with Rachel and her husband, Richard, in 2008. The social workers had told them that Tom was the youngest of five children who had had a disturbed early life. 'He’d had 27 moves in six years and had been on the at-risk register as an unborn child because of the way the family was and the risk of neglect,’ says Rachel.

'But I didn’t find all that out until quite recently, and we didn’t understand how neglect and abuse can affect a child, so were not at all worried by the little we had been told. We had been trying to adopt for two years and had fallen in love with him on sight. He did swear at his foster carer when we first met him, but we just thought it was the stress of facing another move, and that all he needed was enormous amounts of love and lots of good food.’

It didn’t turn out quite like that. On his second afternoon in his new home Tom told Rachel to 'f— off’. She was rather taken aback. They had visitors so she took him aside quietly, 'but he carried on swearing at me, and hit me. And that was the start… Alarm bells began to ring. A couple of days later something else kicked off, and Richard took Tom upstairs to talk to him and he went for him, saying, “Who the f— do you think you are?” We calmed him down but then he attacked me and that was when Richard said, “I can’t do it.”

'Richard couldn’t cope with seeing Tom being violent and abusive to me all the time. It made him so angry that he was frightened he would hurt Tom, and he wanted us to end the adoption.

I couldn’t contemplate giving up on this child that no one else cared about so soon after he’d come to us, but Richard told me I had to choose: my child or my marriage. Within a week Richard had gone. It was completely out of the blue and it was very hard at the time but we are still great friends.’

Rachel was then left to parent Tom on her own and went on formally to adopt him as a single parent a year later, during which time Tom continued to be violent towards her. 'The social worker had warned me that he sometimes used bad language under stress and showed occasional challenging behaviour. But he used grotesquely sexualised language. I had no understanding that a six-year-old who looks like a four-year-old could talk like that.’

Not knowing what to do and feeling that Tom was, in fact, very frightened by yet another new set of circumstances, Rachel rang social services. 'I said, “This child needs help. We need help.” And they refused.’ Three years later, she says rather grimly, 'We are hanging in there.’

It’s something that, to their deepest regret, Mary and Craig Allen are no longer doing. Eight years ago two sisters from the North West were placed with them, but both girls are now back in care.

Charlotte and Katie were five and six when they were taken into care, and seven and eight when they came to live with Mary and Craig, in Hertfordshire. 'We had been given a reasonable history of the things that had happened in their lives,’ says Mary. 'We knew that they came from a background of extreme neglect and domestic violence, and that their father had been violent to both girls and sexually abused Charlotte. There was a suspicion he’d sexually abused Katie, too.’

But the couple felt that all of the children’s behavioural problems were glossed over. 'It was all about how wonderful they were and how well they’d settled with the foster family. They did say the reports were a bit out of date.’

So Mary and Craig asked for them to be updated and were given the new reports just before the girls came to live with them. 'I was sitting in the hotel room reading Katie’s report when suddenly I saw the words “attachment disorder” [in laymen’s terms, fear of loving] thrown into the long text. It was a worry, but it was 24 hours before we were due to bring them home; we were too far in. We’d fallen in love with them because they are gorgeous, lovely girls; it was too late to turn back.

'This was July 2004 and it had been decided that it was a good idea for the girls to come to us in the summer holidays so we could all get to know each other. Big mistake,’ says Mary. 'Children need routine and structure, and their behaviour was off the rails, extreme. Charlotte was very withdrawn and wetting the bed every night, and Katie was having huge tantrums, hour after hour, day after day.

'If her tantrum was still raging at eight or nine at night, sometimes I’d take her out of the house and walk around the streets to give Charlotte a chance of sleeping. And Katie would try to push me in front of cars, shouting obscenities at me.’

By the end of the holidays Mary and Craig were on their knees and the girls’ social worker referred them to CAMHS (Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services). 'But we just never got the support we needed,’ says Mary. After three years of struggle the social worker told Mary, 'I think this adoption is about to “disrupt”,’ the formal term for an adoption that is never finalised. 'We had just gone on and on and on – trying, trying, trying,’ recalls Mary. 'To walk away purely because people wouldn’t give us the depth of support we needed? Well, that would have been awful.’

Mary did for a while get some online coaching from the girls’ placing authority. 'One morning I was sobbing down the phone. Katie had hit me so many times and I was trying to get her to go to school and she was whacking me. We had been seriously abused, verbally and physically, for years. We were domestic-violence victims and were falling apart; you can only take so much.’ Meanwhile, they felt powerless to help Charlotte, who, says Mary, had done 'an awful lot of self-harming. She’s cut herself over the years, and threatened suicide.’

As they got into their teens both girls started bunking off school. When she was 14 Charlotte didn’t come home one night. 'And then a week later it happened again for three nights. We knew she was using cannabis and sleeping with unsuitable people – doing horrible, horrible things.

'There was always something new to worry about. The police were frequently called to try to find the girls and get them out of whatever trouble they’d got in. Otherwise it was just me screaming at any professional that would listen, “We can’t keep her safe and we can’t give her an education.” It was all escalating and eventually I called my support worker, sobbing, and said, “I’m not sure I can do this anymore.”’

Mary and Craig asked if Charlotte could go into foster care. A year later they were facing the same situation with Katie: 'She’s in a highly therapeutic unit where she can get an education and where we can still be Mum and Dad. She is still free to come home from time to time.’

It is not known exactly how many families in this country go through the agonising process of having to end an adoption. But the British Association for Adoption and Fostering (BAAF), estimates that one in five adoptions fall apart before the adoption order is granted, which, if all goes well, happens a year after the child is placed.

Meanwhile the charity Adoption UK estimates that as many as one third of adoptions break down after the adoption order has been granted. Its director, Jonathan Pearce, says, 'Two thirds of adoptive families need significant support to overcome the history of abuse and neglect children bring into their family. Contemporary adoptions are becoming more and more complex; adoptions are at higher levels than they used to be 15 years ago.’

Speak to social workers, child-protection officers, child psychologists and adoptive families and you will hear stories very similar to that of Mary, Craig, Charlotte and Katie. Anecdotally, they will tell you that over the past five years it feels as though there has been an increase in the number of adoptions that disrupt or break down.

In the nine months from April to December 2009 local authorities across Britain saw care applications by social workers rise by an unprecedented 46 per cent, in the wake of the Baby P case, when 17-month-old Peter Connelly was found dead in his cot after suffering months of abuse and neglect. Yet not enough is known about the damage caused by early trauma on the infant brain to be able to help adoptive families to cope.

Professor Stephen Scott, the director of the adoption and fostering team at the Maudsley Hospital in London, says, 'Some adopted children are extremely disruptive. Not only do they fail to learn to regulate their emotions – they were never calmed and comforted by a loving parent – but also it affects their brain function. The slightest frustration can trigger a wave of stress hormones that sends them into an unreachable state of rage.’

Christine Dobson, the director of programmes at the Child Trauma Academy in Houston, Texas, explains that, 'Neuron development is most rapid at the beginning of life, and all of brain development takes place from zero to three. A child who has a loving, nurturing primary care-giver for the first three years of life will get a good start and will walk through the world assuming that people are good until they learn otherwise. But a child who gets scattershot care-giving in the early months or years will assume the world is not a safe, nurturing place.’

And this in a nutshell is the story of Rachel Humphreys’s son: 'Tom doesn’t want to be bad. He is a damaged child,’ she says. 'He has an attachment disorder. He tells me it is easier not having a mum, as it is really scary to love somebody. I have a child who cannot play. The toys disappear; he cannot allow himself to get attached even to them.’

One thing that is known to make a huge difference to the success of adoptions is the speed with which a child is taken from its potentially perilous birth family and placed with what it is hoped will be its 'forever family’. Martin Narey, the former chief executive of Barnardo’s, says, 'The really successful adoptions are when the child starts with the adoptive parents while still a baby. The older a child is when they are adopted the greater the likelihood of a disruption, and the younger the child is the smaller the likelihood of breakdown. It is better at two than three, but best of all when a child is a few weeks old.’

Julie Selwyn, the director of the Hadley Centre for Adoption and Foster Care Studies at the University of Bristol, agrees. Yet across England and Wales, says Selwyn, 'It can commonly take 12 months for the decision to be made. A year in adult terms is not very long, but in the life of a baby it is a long, long time – so much is happening developmentally during that time.’

A new type of adoption called concurrent planning could be the answer. Developed by the children’s charity Coram in 1999 it allows babies at risk to be placed with their putative adoptive families within days of birth. The adoptive family provides foster care for a year, during which time the birth parents are allowed contact with the baby and given every chance to turn their lives around and show that they could parent the child. If they don’t manage that within the 12 months, the child is placed for adoption with the foster family. This way the adults – the potential adoptive parents – have taken the risk rather than the child.

BAAF would like to see concurrent planning rolled out nationally, and while most local authorities agree that the benefits to children are enormous and say they would like to use the system, most of them also say that it is too expensive and they would have to have smaller caseloads or more social workers to make it work. The disruption figure for Coram is consistently 2.8 per cent – one out of the 60 to 80 placements they make each year – whereas the average disruption rate for local authorities is 16 per cent. So they are obviously on to something.

For Rachel Humphreys, this is small consolation. She lays the blame for the problems she and Tom are struggling with squarely on the social workers who placed Tom with her.

'They weren’t honest with us. I have since been able to get hold of his school records, and there are reports in there that he bit other children, and a letter from one of his foster carers saying that he’d attacked other children in her care and she couldn’t allow him to stay overnight with her anymore because he was so violent. We wouldn’t have touched him with a bargepole if we’d been shown that; we’d have known that we couldn’t handle him.’

On a good day, though, Tom’s adoring mum will say, 'My son is a bright spark, a lovely enthusiastic, football-loving child. There are wonderful times and he is lovely until he is in a muddle and it is all there bubbling up and he will smash a plate or

a glass and get abusive. Sometimes he says, “I need to kill you because I want to go back to care.” I say, “You will go somewhere really not nice if you kill me, and you will not get apple crumble there.”’

Barnardo’s Fostering and Adoption Week is from 31 January to 6 February,

barnardos.org.uk/fosteringandadoption