Adoption is a complex phenomenon comprising of the needs, requirements and expectations of individuals, families, organisations and the state. Multiple tensions exist within and between each of these factors, but ultimately the underpinning need, which is central to everyone, is, it seems, to avoid, where possible, a failed adoption.
“Of the adoptions that take place nationally, between 10 and 20 percent fail to work out, according to Karen Theobald, adoption team manager for Northamptonshire County Council. Karen said, “The council takes great care to make sure a child has been placed with the right family, to avoid more disruption in that youngster's life.” (Evening Telegraph, Northamptonshire, November 8, 2013).
The resonance of the importance of the need to protect children remains implicit in the process of prospective adopter assessment. This includes the time an agency needs to complete a thorough assessment and for a prospective adopted family to have time to reflect on their decision. It positions the responsibility of getting the matching of prospective adopters and children onto the local authority, and as evidenced in Chapter three this also serves to add to the legitimacy of adoption (Pustilnik, 2002). The legitimacy and the positioning of Local Authorities maintaining the highest standards of assessment are present in the extracts below.
"We are looking for people who are able to provide stability.
There is nothing worse than adoption breakdown as the child takes 10 steps backwards. This is why the adoption process is thorough and can take up to six months so that background checks can be carried out - the children are our main priority." (Chester Chronicle, November 8, 2012).
121
“After months of assessments and visits, the family were able to adopt two-year-old Ellie, who had previously been fostered in a lively, busy household, much like the one she was being brought in to. The couple admitted it was a time-consuming process and, like anyone else thinking of adopting, there were some initial reservations. "The timing was slow, but it gave us time to reflect if we were making the right decision.” (West Briton, November 7, 2013).
As discussed in Chapter three, disruption rates are difficult to determine as figures range between 4 – 19% depending upon factors such as the age of a child at the time of placement (Selwyn, Wijedasa &
Meakings, 2014). But equally, research indicates factors reveals that practices within and between adoption agencies can also impact on the suitability of adoptive placements (Farmer & Dance, 2015; Farmer, Dance, Beecham, Bonin, & Ouwejan, 2010). In addition, the extracts above suggest the length of time to complete an assessment and having a child placed is positive. However, such narratives conflict with others, which aim to make it easier and quicker for people to adopt. Indeed the ‘foster to adopt’ scheme limits the potential or arguably, need for matching (Farmer
& Dance, 2015; Farmer et al., 2010; Wainwright & Ridley, 2012).
“In July 2013, the Government introduced a new assessment process in a bid to reduce the time taken to assess prospective adopters, which was seen as a huge barrier towards people coming forward.” (The Evening Standard (London), November 4, 2013).
"There is an acute national shortage of adopters, and the government is streamlining the process to make it easier for people to adopt. Under the new guidelines, the first stage of the process is expected to take two months. The second stage will take around four months." (Bradford Telegraph and Argus, November 4, 2013).
In the above extracts, there is a validation of the government’s decision to reduce assessment timescales is supported by the use of the adjective ‘huge’. In addition to the assertion that a reduced timescale will encourage more prospective adopters to make enquiries, the statement also implies they are more likely to complete the process. Specific details of times are given which would enable prospective adopters to have a
122 clear sense of the timing of each stage of the process and potentially build this into their decision making.
A reflective extract from an adoptive parent suggests that the lengthy process can be intrusive and require a higher standard of parenting, but with appropriate support, this can be an enjoyable process.
“My wife and I were fortunate enough to adopt our beautiful daughter just over a year ago at the end of a year-long process. The assessment and training we underwent with [the adoption agency] was, without doubt, robust and, to some extent, intrusive. And it seemed that a higher standard of parenting is expected of you than the average family - but given the start in life faced by many looked-after children, I think that is the least they deserve.” (The Western Mail, November 9, 2012).
Once again, the need for adoption agencies to satisfy assessment requirements also raises the issue of time and its importance to the careful planning required. There is an indication of the intrusiveness of the assessment process, which implies that some aspects of what is examined are very personal (Cousins, 2003; Hicks & 2000). However, the above extract extends beyond the actual process of statutory checks and assessment and reveals that the process is ultimately reliant upon the balancing of the needs of the children and adults involved. The adoptive parent’s statement also indicates they felt held to a higher standard of parenting which reaffirms the ‘othering’ of adoptive parenthood. The statement made about his wife, affirms that this is a married heterosexual man, the absence of his ethnicity suggests he is white. Their adopted daughter is positively described as beautiful, which counters other negative descriptions of prospective adoptive children as challenging and hard to place (Kaniuk et al., 2004).
“The adoption team, who were rated as outstanding by Ofsted in a recent inspection, take time to ensure that each child is match perfectly with their adoptive families, therefore, the breakdown of placements are very low.”
(Goole Courier, November 9, 2012).
123 Also included in the corpus were discourses, which expect adoptive parents to have on-going needs, for which support will be available until a child reaches adulthood.
“A long-term partnership which is being heralded as the
"gold standard" in adoption support, providing services for adoptive families from the first enquiry about becoming an adopter right through to the adopted child reaching adulthood.” (The Western Mail, November 9, 2012).
In the extract above the continuing support beyond universal services adds to the ‘othering’ of adoptive parents. However, additionally, indicates that rather than assuming a return to private family life, that adoption families retain a public identity evident in their enduring relationship with the agency that placed their child. This simultaneously extends the scope of adoption agencies beyond recruitment and assessment of prospective adopters. Although less explicit the term ‘Gold Standard’ suggest there is competition or comparison between agencies to attract prospective adoptive families.
The corpus is predominantly mindful that the aim of converging people and policies is to create adoptive families. Although the discourses used within the campaigns are directed at prospective adopters, there are occasions when we are reminded of the voice and agency of prospective adoptive children.
"We did worry that the kids might not love us in return. But very early on, two of the children said to us: "We've been thinking we'd like to start calling you mummy and daddy right now. Is that alright?' We had been accepted. Joy swept through us." (The Star (Sheffield), November 9, 2012).
The above extract from an adoptive parent includes emotional discourses, which revealed their own need for love and acceptance. It indicates the limitation of legislation and policy which determine the legal basis that creates adoptive families (Pustilnik, 2002). In doing so, it highlights the capacity of adults and children to find their own sense of
124 belonging to one another that arguably has greater meaning. Finally, the extract above indicates the subjective agency of the children to have some choice in who they accept as their adoptive parents.
Successful adoption policies are evident in the creation of families within which both the needs of children and adults are met. However, what is striking amongst the rhetoric of the complex needs of adopted children is their resilience, to not only adapt to loss but to excel and bring joy.
"She brings me absolute happiness. She has just blended in. It's so amazing to see her blossom after she first lost her birth family and then her foster family. Now she has in me her 'forever mummy' ' and she really has excelled." (Sunday Life, November 10, 2013).
The above article is a reminder of the enormous task required of adopted children to ‘blend into’ their new families. The government foster to adopt scheme hopes to limit the number of moves that children experience, to reduce the sense of loss they have and the identities of belonging they have to recreate. It is a positive account of resilience that will likely encourage prospective adopters to feel hopeful of a positive and rewarding outcome.
Within the corpus, Wendy Keidan, Director of British Association of Adoption and Fostering in Cymru, challenged policymakers, adoption agencies and prospective adopters through situating adoption as a chosen route to parenthood.
“Adoption needs to be repositioned as a positive life choice, as opposed to a last chance saloon, for those keen to start or complete a family.” (The Western Mail, Wales, November 4, 2013).
In the above extract, Keidan argues adoption is seen as a ‘last chance saloon’ for those who want to start or complete their family. This suggests a renegotiation of the prominent pronatalist position to creating a family by biological means. However, as we have seen the rhetoric within
125 the NAW corpus has been divergent and at times relied heavily on emotive pronatalist narratives. She also highlights the choice of adoption not only for those who are yet to be parents but those who want to complete a family suggesting the potential for a broader rhetoric on blended families.
The repositioning of adoption as a choice, suggests an enduring view of adoption being a decision reached because of a lack of choice of routes to parenthood. It extends adoption as a means, not only of achieving parenthood but also of complementing families. This extended inclusion of adoption, repositioned as a positive choice in the construction of British families, creates the potential for an amendment to discourses which ‘other’ adoption. However, this NAW study was limited by the absence of prospective adopter’s experiences beyond the limits of NAW campaign rhetoric. Thus, the aim of the phenomenological study was to understand prospective adopters by examining how their experiences and analyse how they relate to the NAW campaign discourses used to construct them.
5.4 Chapter summary
This study examined some critical insights into the construction of discourses within British national adoption week campaigns. I argued that evaluating the discourses used to construct prospective adoptive parenthood can contribute to the understanding of prospective adopters and the function of popular rhetoric in the recruitment process. However, I note that a focus on the NAW campaigns limits inclusion of broader discourses from prospective adoptive parents’, prospective adoptive relatives, birth families and children. The discourses from parental figures within the corpus were limited to those who had already adopted a child illuminating reflective experiences. This imbalance of retrospective voices contributing to the construction of prospective adoptive parents is also discussed in Chapter three. However, I recognise this is in part because attempts to recruit prospective adopters as participants have yielded poor response rates (Wallis, 2006; Ward, 2011). In addition, our understanding of prospective adopters is limited because of the dearth of research in this
126 area, and I have argued, further constrained by rhetoric that may not match experience.
Crucial to this debate is the predominant assertion of the existence of myths, which adoption agencies claim serve to prohibit potential adopters from coming forward. Research supports the claims that myths, which perpetuate adoptive parenting as second best to biological parenthood, prevent or delay people from making that choice (Demick, 2007). However, examination of the NAW corpus reflects that adoptive parenthood as a choice is positioned as a means of achieving parenthood after a biological route has failed. This was particularly evident in the embodied emotional discourses relating to the unmet need that characterises biological motherhood and were absent for fathers (Locke, 2010). These discourses resonate with the historical development of adoption being a route to motherhood for couples who are infertile (Cudmore, 2005; Fontenot, 2007; Goldberg et al., 2009). Our understanding of adoptive fatherhood is developing, although this is a positive development, much of this research is anchored to gendered and sexuality discourses (Brown et al., 2009; Goldberg et al., 2011; Hicks, 2005, 2006; Wood, 2015).
In considering the social construction of adoption, it is essential that the construction and subsequent dissemination of knowledge are reflective of its origins and current context. As such I argue that the construct of what is a good enough adoptive parent needs further exploration (Noy-Sharav, 2002). As my analysis shows, who is deemed a suitable prospective adopter can vary and the power of this decision lies buried among other powers held by the institution (adoption agency and social workers) (Foucault, 1989). This suggests a dissociation between legal and policy parameters of the characteristics that define the suitable adopter, dominant ideologies that continue to underpin professional practice and popular perceptions based on cultural myths, which are, unknowingly perpetuated (Foucault, 1989). However, I remain mindful of the limitations of my data sample and the constraints prevalent during the
127 NAW campaign, which may differ from other modes of socio-political rhetoric.
Within the corpus, Wendy Keidan, Director of British Association of Adoption and Fostering in Cymru, spoke of the need to reposition adoption as a positive life choice. I suggest that the social construction of language is vital if adoption agencies are to contribute to a repositioning of contemporary British adoption. The development and understanding of adoption are entwined with its historical time and place (Hicks, 2005;
Walker, 2009). Some societies have an expectation that children will at times, be cared for away, from their biological parents (Rasmussen, 2009).
These and other anthropological insights may assist in considering how best to achieve this complex cultural and political repositioning (Warren, 2005). Cousins (2003) remind us that adoption is an ever-changing phenomenon but that it is always about the lives of people. As such, a postmodern, pluralistic examination of the subjective experience of prospective adopters, amid political, legal and social constructions is essential if they are to contribute to this shift-change.
This chapter has used a social constructionist based analysis of the NAW newspaper campaigns, of 2012 and 2013 to explore the discursive construction of prospective adoptive parenthood. In doing so, it highlights some critical issues regarding the ambiguity of who might be a suitable prospective adoptive parent. I have challenged the assumption that the British public inappropriately perpetuates myths, which prevent them from making further progress to adopt. These myths are part of the existing repertoires emerging from ideologies from which the construction and idealisation of certain types of family are built. The NAW campaign discourses reflect that the information available to the public limits their agency to the extent of only ‘opting in’ for an assessment. In addition, the analysis reflects the necessity to view adoption in its relative context and its changing function in contemporary Britain. Adoption is a prominent issue within the UK, but the children it affects are a small percentage of children for whom the state has parental responsibility (Jones, 2003). This alongside the queries of the permeability of permanence (Beckett,
128 Pinchen, & Mckeigue, 2013; Jones, 2003) provides interesting opportunities for future research. The complexity of this debate is compounded by established cultural views of family, amid the dominance of neoliberal political and organisational rhetoric. Notably, the voices of children, their birth and prospective adoptive relatives are largely absent.
I assert that if contemporary adoption is to be successfully repositioned that all voices need to be heard and their experiences understood.
129