IMPUESTO DE JUEGOS PERMITIDOS Y CASINOS

This chapter has outlined ways in which traditional open practices can have a beneficial impact on the adoption kinship network. However, the evidence suggests that openness

23

often presents complexities and challenges. I therefore argue that there is a need to question the suitability of current methods of openness in their ability to maintain relationships, address identity issues for the adopted child, and have positive outcomes for all concerned. Triseliotis (2010) argues that the debate surrounding the merits of contact is still ongoing and there is no standardised measure against which to evaluate the risks and benefits of contact. It seems that there are inherent problems for many families in their quest to maintain the child’s dual connection. As Macaskill (2002) argued the positives of contact and openness are interlinked with negative aspects and risks.

The ‘complex dance’ (Grotevant et al., 2005: 182) that is involved through maintaining post-adoption contact creates challenges for the adoption kinship network. The challenges are particularly evident when considering the ability of current methods to meet the purpose of acknowledging and sustaining the adoptee’s dual connection. Smith and Logan (2004) have argued that traditional methods of contact may not sufficiently facilitate the ongoing exchange of information and maintenance of relationships. This is highlighted in the literature surrounding search and reunion, and the ‘information gaps’ in knowledge about birth family history that exist when the adoptee reaches adulthood (Wrobel & Dillon, 2009). This may be due to certain limitations of traditional methods. Sinclair, Baker, Wilson and Gibbs (2005) have highlighted that contact is often not extended to wider birth family members and previous foster carers, and suggest that this is often a lost opportunity for adopted children. Therefore the relationships that are important to the child may not be maintained. In addition the methods themselves have been criticised. Over a decade ago, Swanton (2002: 129) argued that letter-writing, the method used in the majority of contact cases, is not a ‘modern-day skill’. Letterbox, often viewed as the easier end of the contact spectrum, can be challenging (Sales, 2002). Whereas, face-to-face contact can feel unnatural. Therefore it is important to engage in activities that children currently enjoy, for example communicative technologies. Neil (2002a) argued that when developing contact arrangements between the birth relatives and the adopted child it may be useful to learn from established family models of interaction and how the child usually interacts with family members. This would ensure that public contact practices can be integrated into the private realm of the family.

The infrequent and formal nature of contact arrangements make it difficult to create interactions that can be defined as ‘family practices’ that require an everyday element (Morgan, 1996). Contact is an artificial meeting, with private displays often played out in

24

public settings with individuals that are unprepared (Slade, 2002). The ‘strangeness’ of the contact event itself can limit the development of family relationships and achieving closeness is difficult when interaction is limited to the contact event itself (Cossar & Neil, 2013). The nature of post-adoption contact often means that it is fairly infrequent, creating a lack of family intimacy on a day-to-day basis and a lack of current information and knowledge about birth relatives (Jones & Hackett, 2012: 291). Virtual contact may provide a way to normalise birth family relationships for some adoptive families and add an everyday element to contact, although the risks of this contact would need to be considered. In terms of developing the personal characteristics necessary for the maintenance of successful adoption kinship relationships, the formality of current contact arrangements does not facilitate the closeness necessary. As Neil and Howe (2004: 253) argued, “the more people know about each other, the greater their understanding, tolerance and compassion is likely to be”. In order to develop empathic qualities and the ability to consider the perspectives of others (Neil, 2003), trusting relationships must develop which can be difficult through infrequent and formal contact arrangements.

The negative impact of contact on individuals within the adoption kinship network must also be considered. Of vital importance is the potential traumatising nature of contact for some adopted children with certain birth relatives (Macaskill, 2002). Children are often not listened to regarding their feelings about contact (Macaskill, 2002) and therefore it is not surprising that contact can sometimes be problematic for them. There is a certain pressure put on adoptive parents with the responsibility held in their role as ‘kin keepers’ (Grotevant, 2009). Adoptive parents find all methods of contact and openness challenging to some extent (MacDonald & McSherry, 2011) which can cause stress in their role as parents leading to problematic relationships with their child. Despite the stress that can be caused, adoptive parents often facilitate contact for the benefit of the child (Smith & Logan, 2004). When openness was a new and untested idea, adoptive parents were still prepared to support this despite any worries or concerns (Swanton, 2002). Therefore, the emergence of virtual contact could be one that is also managed and incorporated into the private practices of family life.

We are still learning about the impact of traditional open practices on the adoption kinship network and the debate about the risks and benefits continues. In the meantime, some adoption kinship networks are moving on to use technological methods, such as social networking sites to maintain openness. Macaskill’s (2002) study of 76 adoptive and foster

25

care families of 106 children involved in face-to-face contact, is based on the premise that the voices of those closely involved in the contact itself are significant. These voices can be used to extend professional knowledge surrounding contact that, Macaskill (2002) argued, is still in an ‘embryonic’ stage. A decade on, we are still learning about the longer term outcomes of contact and the way it impacts adoptive families. We know that contact will not be appropriate for all adopted children and their families, and planning must be made on an individual basis to avoid a ‘one size fits all’ policy surrounding contact arrangements (Neil et al., 2011). Moreover, the traditional methods of post-adoption contact appear somewhat outdated in the Internet age, where communication is increasingly facilitated via technology. The next chapter discusses the use of communication technology in family life and its potential impact on adoptive families and contact.

26