How well do you know your partner?

VfM4meplse

duchy wrote: »

The thought that a social worker who is supposed to be a professional would discuss a client in any way on a public forum even in very general terms is quite startling. I study alongside future social workers and they tell me this wouldn't be acceptable at all according to their ethics and professional conduct module.

From the detail you've given it would be possible for your client to identify herself and raise a formal complaint.

Its actually quite usual to share anecdotes about subject X within a profession though, especially if there is relevant learning.

How would the individual be identified by people other than themselves? That is what anonymity is about. The shocking aspect was the fact that the OP shared their judgement / opinion online.

MacMickster

AubreyMac wrote: »

Someone questioned what job would ask someone such personal stuff.

I work for an adoption agency and I deal with the first stages when applying to adopt. ...

Looking into someone past is important as then I can see how they deal with trauma, loss etc which will give a better insight at how they will cope with a child who is likely to, later on, shows signs of loss/damage and may even reject the adopters for a long time at first. Because of this, we reject around 50% of applicants as they all want straight forward healthy babies who are just relinquished by teen parents! Even with the ones we do take on, only a few end up with successful adoptions.

This suggests that your whole adoption process and decision making is seriously flawed, and all of your intrusive questioning serves no purpose.

So 50% of people who are unable to conceive naturally, but still want to provide a loving home to a child who has had a bad start to life, are rejected following an interview with you as a worse option than the horrendous care system in this country.

You will reject people because they don't want to talk about their own childhood? You do realise how almost universally poor the outcomes are for children brought up in care?

Lord save us all from well-meaning but seriously misguided social workers.

suki1964

AubreyMac wrote: »

This is exactly why I ask such questions.

Someone questioned what job would ask someone such personal stuff.

I work for an adoption agency and I deal with the first stages when applying to adopt. The most important thing to look for when assessing prospective adopters is whether they can meet the needs of children who are available to adopt. Lots can meet practical needs like breakfast, school, dinner and bedtime, but not many are naturally emotionally in tune with children, especially ones who are damaged, been abused, neglected, witnessed awful things and experienced loss (of natural and foster family) at such a young age. Looking into someone past is important as then I can see how they deal with trauma, loss etc which will give a better insight at how they will cope with a child who is likely to, later on, shows signs of loss/damage and may even reject the adopters for a long time at first. Because of this, we reject around 50% of applicants as they all want straight forward healthy babies who are just relinquished by teen parents! Even with the ones we do take on, only a few end up with successful adoptions.

But with my previous partner (before I started my current job), I may not know of every minute detail of his childhood but just through conversation and meeting his family, questions and discussions naturally come up.

I'm not naturally emotionally in tune with children, never had any, never wanted any, never babysat as a teen, didn't have very much younger siblings

Yet I've managed to bring up two step children and care for my grandchildren pretty bloody well. So much so that the grandchildren are usually sat with their coats and bags on waiting for me to pull into the drive and the only tears we get is when they are having to go home


My two sisters are both fantastic mothers who have very loving relationships with their children

A p1ss poor start in life doesn't mean we are damaged goods not to be trusted around children.

cbrown372

duchy wrote: »

The thought that a social worker who is supposed to be a professional would discuss a client in any way on a public forum even in very general terms is quite startling. I study alongside future social workers and they tell me this wouldn't be acceptable at all according to their ethics and professional conduct module.

From the detail you've given it would be possible for your client to identify herself and raise a formal complaint.

VfM4meplse wrote: »

Its actually quite usual to share anecdotes about subject X within a profession though, especially if there is relevant learning.

How would the individual be identified by people other than themselves? That is what anonymity is about. The shocking aspect was the fact that the OP shared their judgement / opinion online.

MacMickster wrote: »

This suggests that your whole adoption process and decision making is seriously flawed, and all of your intrusive questioning serves no purpose.

So 50% of people who are unable to conceive naturally, but still want to provide a loving home to a child who has had a bad start to life, are rejected following an interview with you as a worse option than the horrendous care system in this country.

You will reject people because they don't want to talk about their own childhood? You do realise how almost universally poor the outcomes are for children brought up in care?

Lord save us all from well-meaning but seriously misguided social workers.

All of these above. I'm glad I'm not in the adoption process and would think anyone who is on reading this would be pretty distressed to think they are being discussed in this fashion

Mr_Toad

:oI don't talk about my past much with anyone. I have plenty of old friends that know a lot about me but I tend not talk about with partners or anyone else.

People have all sorts of reasons for keeping it to themselves and you may find my reasons laughable.

Why? Because I had an idyllic and privileged childhood and talking about it more often than not would cause disbelief and I would be accused of boasting "you've always got to go one better" that sort of thing, so I stopped telling people about my life.

It sometimes comes out in conversation when old friends mix with new. A few days ago a group of us were talking about a friends son learning to drive and our early cars when one of my old friends said "It's no good talking to posh boy about it, his Dad taught him to drive in an E Type Jag and he used to let him use it when he passed his test."

How do you tell people you lived in Venice for a while as a child or spent a few years living on a boat in the Med. Or when travel and holidays come up and people ask if you've ever fancied going to wherever and you keep saying been there done that, they don't like it.

People think you're making it up to impress them so I just don't do it. I haven't ever since I was old enough to realise that my life was different to most of the people I met.

I sometimes come unstuck like the time we were on holiday and I took us to a nice little out of the way bay and beach that I'd been to before

duchy

VfM4meplse wrote: »

Its actually quite usual to share anecdotes about subject X within a profession though, especially if there is relevant learning.

How would the individual be identified by people other than themselves? That is what anonymity is about. The shocking aspect was the fact that the OP shared their judgement / opinion online.

]

Indeed which is why I said "on a public forum"

I think the OP's post where she fleshed out why she was asking the lady concerned completely crossed the line - I didn't have a problem with her original post .

No wonder social workers have such a bad reputation.

AubreyMac

I'm not a social worker (and don't want to be one).


Even with my work in the very first stages, applicants are questioned and assessed extensively by their social worker and then by a panel and decision maker throughout.


Bear in mind the possibility that everything I've said so far could be a metaphor for something else.

MacMickster wrote: »

This suggests that your whole adoption process and decision making is seriously flawed, and all of your intrusive questioning serves no purpose.

So 50% of people who are unable to conceive naturally, but still want to provide a loving home to a child who has had a bad start to life, are rejected following an interview with you as a worse option than the horrendous care system in this country.

You will reject people because they don't want to talk about their own childhood? You do realise how almost universally poor the outcomes are for children brought up in care?

Lord save us all from well-meaning but seriously misguided social workers.

There are many myths around adoption, and one of them is that there isn't enough adopters. Fact is that there are more approved adopters than children available, this is across the UK and not with the agency I work with. But it's finding a right match is where the gap is. A lot of agencies have put a stop to recruiting unless applicants are willing to take a transracial child or a child with complex health needs. Sadly, of the 50% of these that make it pass the first stages, around half of these will withdraw themselves when they realise that the children available are older, of ethnic minority and have complex health or emotional needs. This is along with the fact that they usually have other siblings (usually from other or unknown fathers) and contact with natural family is encouraged.


If someone is not willing to be open about their past, how will they deal with a child who is showing distress about their own past and want to talk about it? It is natural that kids want to know about where they are from, there are more and more requests for access to past records. Effects of abuse/neglect/loss can come out at a later stage and in different ways. Expecting someone to 'get on with it' may work for people who have not been through abuse or separation of natural family. But for children who are already damaged that can be detrimental and lead to a breakdown in a home that's meant to be 'permanent'.


There's no hard and fast rule that people who don't open up about childhood can not adopt but this is to be explored (and rightly so). Previously there was a woman who was a virgin in her 40s, this was explored and she had issues about men due to her own bad childhood. She was not willing to address this and have therapy so she was turned down. Sure, she would have made a great parent to her own or a step child, but she was not suitable to a child who may already have issues about the parental figures in their lives. Also, with more adopters available she'd be competing with other stronger candidates.


Not all people who apply are infertile, there is an increase of single and gay applicants who again, all want healthy babies who have been given up.

tea_lover

AubreyMac wrote: »

There's no hard and fast rule that people who don't open up about childhood can not adopt but this is to be explored (and rightly so). Previously there was a woman who was a virgin in her 40s, this was explored and she had issues about men due to her own bad childhood. She was not willing to address this and have therapy so she was turned down. Sure, she would have made a great parent to her own or a step child, but she was not suitable to a child who may already have issues about the parental figures in their lives. Also, with more adopters available she'd be competing with other stronger candidates.


Not all people who apply are infertile, there is an increase of single and gay applicants who again, all want healthy babies who have been given up.

For every person who's ever written/said/thought "just adopt" to someone, I hope you read this and see what potential adopters are up against. Is it any wonder people are put off even thinking about when you have to jump through these ridiculous hoops. As for the phrase "stronger candidates" being used to describe potential parents, I find that incredibly distasteful - and highly unprofessional.

VfM4meplse

AubreyMac wrote: »

If someone is not willing to be open about their past, how will they deal with a child who is showing distress about their own past and want to talk about it?

This is a fair point.

It doesn't explain why you consider it acceptable to share with the rest of the world, though.

mai_taylor

I'm sure I don't know everything but we talk about our childhood and things that happened before we got together because naturally we are interested in each others lives and like sharing our experiences with each other. I know where he used to go on family holidays, I know where he went to school and he's shown me both houses he lived in as a child, I know the big events in his life, what acheivements he's proud of, who his friends were growing up and about past relationships. I know about a very tragic event in his life that he doesn't like to talk about so I don't press him on the subject and I don't feel like I need to know the details. (He told me about this on our second date). I don't know how it's even possible to not know these things when are lives are so linked, when I know his family and he knows mine these things naturally come out.