The Adoption of Disabled Children

1. The Adoption of Disabled Children by Sarah Bunt

2. Background to the Paper Disabled children continue to be more difficult to place in adoptive families than their non-disabled peers (Baker 2007) As disabled children subvert the idealised notion of childhood they are more likely to be considered unadoptable (Cousins 2006) For adopters who experience infertility, their impulsion to adopt is their only means of having a family which consequently factors in the way they approach adoption (Palmer 2009). There are a subset of adopters who, regardless of whether they experience infertility, seek to adopt a child with multiple impairments (Palmer 2009).

3. Previous Studies Macaskill, C. (1985) Against All Odds: adopting mentally handicapped children. London: British Agency of Adoption and Fostering. Sinclair, L. (1988) Adopting a New Attitude? A study of five years experience of placing children with a mental handicap with adoptive families. Newcastle Upon Tyne: Barnardos Argent, H. (1998) Find Me a Family: the story of parents for children. London: Souvenir Pressevious Studies.

4. Contemporary Adoption Practice Disabled children represent 25% of the overall care population, although continue to be overlooked within the literature (Gordon et al 2000). Adoption practice should be re-examined in light of the wider context of social change which has occurred in; The Family, Adoption policy and practice, Attitudes towards disabled people.

5. Layder’s (1993) Research Map: A Conceptual Lens The Macro Context: The macro dimension plays and important role into understanding how objective structures have contributed to disabled people’s devalued position in society. History: This paper includes a brief history of adoption practices which initially excluded disabled children from being put forward for adoption through to the factors which led to their inclusion, and how this historical context continues to interplay with current practice.

6. Layder’s (1993) Research Map: A Conceptual Lens Setting: this refers to any institutional setting (such as adoption departments) which has an organised structure and particular ways of operating. Situated activity: explores the interactions between the agency and adopters in a complex negotiation concerning the scope of impairment that adopters could consider. The Self: this section will look at how adopters internalise the role of an adoptive parent of a disabled child.

7. The Macro Context Disabled people are considered as fundamentally flawed; as ‘victims’ only to their own impairment (Barnes and Mercer 2003). Disabled children subvert from cultural associations of the “normal” life course (Priestley 2003 Palmer 2009). Where adopters embark on adopting a disabled child, they are making a decision amid, and in opposition, to prevailing discourses that devalue a disabled life as subverting from the idolised notion of childhood.

8. History Adoption practice is steeped in a history where only those children that reflected the idolised image of the innocent child were considered worth rearing (Keating 2009). Any child that subverted the idealised notion of childhood was disregarded and considered unadoptable (Mather 2002). The emergence of effective contraception, abortion, and increasing acceptance of children conceived illegitimately meant that adoption agencies were compelled to put forward disabled children (Macaskill 1985). However, whilst the culture of adoption practice might be changing to better serve the needs of hard to place children, its association for adopter’s for being a service for which childless couples can retrieve a baby still remains (Palmer 2009).

9. The Setting: the role of the adoption agency In introducing the child to the adopter, agencies engage in a complex process of impression management (Goffman 1959). Agencies need to impart a favourable impression, while paradoxically ensuring that they are displaying an accurate, not disingenuous representation (Cousins 2006)

10. Situated Activity: interactions between the adoption agency and the adopter There are a set of complex interactions amongst the adopters, the adoption agency, the child’s local authority and the adoption panel. Adopters must ensure that they are not being too compromising about their needs and concerns while at the same time ensuring that they are being realistic and not rashly dismissing children that are outside their remit (Palmer 2009) Adopters are more likely to accept a child where their prognosis, however severe, can be envisaged (Cousins 2006).

11. The Self: internalising the role of the adopter The adoption process can be likened to the process of sifting through commodities, where there is a reliance on taste and what one would prefer. Palmer (2009: 154) associates the collection of children’s profiles presented to adopters as often like “a bizarre catalogue where the items on view are human beings”.

12. The Self: internalising the role of the adopter Adopters become more open minded about who they could consider during the course of the adoption process (Macaskill 1985) Adopters may feel a particular connectedness to the child based on an image, film clip, or even description of their personality (Cousins 2006). According to Argent (1998), the main prerequisite for a good match is the general alignment of tastes between the adopter and child.

13. Summary of Points Adopters responses about the prospect of adopting a disabled child are shaped by; The wider macro context, The history of practices in adoption, Existing adoption establishments

14. Summary of Points Adopters often re-evaluate the remit of children they would consider throughout the adoption process. Adopters with previous experience of disability issues are not as influenced by dominant negative conjectures pertaining to a disabled life.

15. References Adoption and Children Act (2002) The National Archives. [Online] Available from: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/38/section/120 [accessed 27/8/2010]. Adoption Register (2009) “Annual Report 2008-2009.” [Online] Available from: http://www.adoptionregister.org.uk/adoreg/default.asp [accessed 07/05/2010]. Allen, N. (2007) Making Sense of the New Adoption Law: a guide for social and welfare services. Dorset: Russell House Publishing. Argent, H. (1998) Whatever Happened to Adam: stories of disabled people who were adopted or fostered. London: British Agency of Adoption and Fostering. Argent, H. (2003) Models of Adoption Support: what works and what doesn’t. London: British Association of Fostering and Adoption.

16. References Baker, C. (2007) “Disabled Children’s Experience of Permanency in the Looked After System.” British Journal of Social Work. Issue 37 pp 1173-1188. Barnes, C., Mercer, G. (2003) Disability: Key Concepts. Cambridge: Polity Press Beck, U. (1992) Risk Society: towards new modernity. London: Sage Publication Bourdieu, P. (1977) Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bourdieu, P. (1984) Distinction: a social critique of the judgement of taste. Translated into English by Nice, R. London: Routeledge.

17. References Bourdieu, P. (2002) “Habitus” In Hiller, J., Rooksby, E. (eds) Habitus a Sense of Place. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Limited pp27- Cousins, J. (2008) Finding Families: ten top tips. London: British Agency of Adoption and Fostering. Cousins, J. (2009) “Placing Disabled Children with Permanent new Families.” In Schofield, G., Simmonds, J. (eds) The Child Placement Handbook. London: BAAF Department of Health (2001) The Children Act Now: Messages from Research. London: Department of Health. Goffman, E. (1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. USA: Anchor Publishing

18. References Gordon, D., Parker, R., Loughran, F., Heslop, P. (2000) Disabled Children in Britain: a re-analysis of the OPCS disability surveys. London: the Statiionary Office Harnett, A., Tierney, E., Guerin, S. (2009) “Convention of hope -- communicating positive, realistic messages to families at the time of a child's diagnosis with disabilities.”British Journal of Learning Disabilities. Vol. 37. Issue. 4, pp 257-64 Hill, M. (2009) “The Practice of Child Placement Handbook: research policy and practice.” In Schofield, G., Simmonds J. (eds) The Child Placement Handbook. London: BAFF pp 11-32 James, A., James, A. (2004) Constructing Childhood. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Keating, J. (2009) A Child for Keeps: the history of adoption in England 1918- 45. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

19. References Kingston, A. (2007) Mothering Special Needs: a different maternal journey. London: Jessica Kinsley Publishers. Layder, D. (1993) New Strategies in Social Research. Cambridge: Polity Press. Macaskill, C. (1985) Against All Odds: adopting mentally handicapped children. London: British Agency of Adoption and Fostering. Mather, M. (2003) “Health and Adoption Support.” In Argent, H. (ed) Models ofAdoption Support: what works and what doesn’t. London: British Association of Fostering and Adoption. Pp 253-268 Murphy. R. (1995) The Body Silent. In Ingstad, B., Reynolds Whyte, S. (ed) Disability in Local and Global Worlds. California: University of California Press. 140-158 Oswin, M. (1978) Children Living in Long Stay Hospitals. London: Spastics International Medical Publications.

20. References Palmer, I. (2009) What to Expect When you’re Adopting. London: Vermilion Priestley, M. (2003) Disability a Life Course Approach. Cambridge: Polity Press. Read, J., Clements, L., Ruebain, D. (2006) Disabled Children and the Law: research and good practice (second edition). London: Jessica Kingsely Publishers. Read, J., Clements, L., Ruebain, D. (2006) Disabled Children and the Law: research and good practice (second edition). London: Jessica Kingsely Publishers. Sinclair, L. (1988) Adopting a New Attitude? A study of five years experience of placing children with a mental handicap with adoptive families. Newcastle Upon Tyne: Barnardo’s