Gransnet and Campaigns

nightowl, your post makes perfect sense. I've always thought it odd that although an adopted child has a 'right' to search for their birth parents once they're 18, they seem to have no rights before that age.

Also the e-petition on women on bank notes was started on change.org by a woman who was sent hatemail because of it. But the government changed its mind because of her starting the petition and others believing in her enough to sign it. Including me!

Jingle, one of the top e-petitions on the government website is about FGM.
It has over 107000 signatures and the government is following it up.

I don't disagree jingl but I'm out of step with most of my professional peers on this. One reason I'm glad to be coming to the end of my career rather than just starting out. There are no easy answers, every case is different, and I have seen mistakes made in every direction. Easy to be wise after the event! I favour open adoptions, where contact with birth relatives is maintained, but many adoptive parents don't want this. I think a far more flexible approach needs to be looked at for the future.

Interestingly Flowerofthewest, I think cutting children off from contact with their birth family increases the likelihood that they will 'vote with their feet' and seek out their parents when they are older. If contact is maintained in a safe manner it often allows children to grow up with a more realistic picture of their parents, and perhaps helps them to be more accepting of their foster carers.

A friend of mine long term fostered two sisters. Both had been severely mentally and physically abused by their mother and her various boyfriends. My friend fostered these girls for over 10 years - the youngest decided that she wanted nothing to do with my friend and ran away back to her abusive mother. That was over 7 years ago - my friend and her husband were heartbroken. I think that come children will always want to go back to their roots whatever they may be.

I should say "enforced adoption".

Right. I can only speak from what I have come across. When my daughters were little, a neighbour was long term fostering two young girls. They did eventually return to the mother and the only people left hurting were the foster parents!

Obviously all cases are different, but when there are relatives who really want to have contact with the child, this should not be denied. Also, people, and circumstances, change over time which is another reason adoption is wrong.

Sorry to butt in jingl, and I know your question was addressed to MiceElf, but the problem with long term fostering has been found to be the lack of permanence and commitment a child experiences, which adoption gives. This is the ongoing debate about long term fostering vs adoption, with adoption currently being the favoured approach. However, I think there is a danger we have thrown out the baby with the bath water in trying to remove all history and family ties for children facing adoption, and older children in particular. This is where I think the debate needs to be re-focused.

MiceElf I think it's wrong to take a child, so finally, away from his or her blood relatives when those relatives love the child, and want to care for it. Something to do with the child's human rights really.

What do you have against long term fostering, with adequate access being given to grandparents/ aunts/uncles, etc?

As someone who works in this field, I'm actually with you on this one jingl. There is a place for forced adoptions but less of a case for closing doors to all birth relatives IMO. There is a well recognised misconception by professionals involved in removing children from birth parents that because parents may pose a risk, the whole family must be risky. IMO assessments are often not sufficiently thorough and birth families are often disregarded, despite the law telling us they must be the first option. Im afraid the fact that adoption has been placed high on the political agenda will only obscure the issues. I think we are heading in entirely the wrong direction, despite largely good intentions.

Why?

Like I said, fostering. Long term if necessary.

And if the blood relatives are heroin addicted criminals who have abused and neglected their child, do you still think their wishes should override the welfare of the child?

I go along with fostering a child where necessary. Never adoption when against the wishes of blood relatives.

And I don't think many of these online petitions started by ordinary individuals ever get anywhere. Takes a "name" or a well-known organisation.

I think campaigning for grandparents "rights" is fraught with complications. Sometimes grandparents are not allowed access for extremely good reasons.
It's a bit like campaigning for divorced fathers "rights" - there are many dads and kids that are suffering. But there are also many cases where dads are a danger to their children or ex wives. So how could you "campaign" on behalf of the good guys? I would not know how on earth to word such a petition.

We followed on from Mumsnet with the (excellent!) Page 3 campaign. Just think perhaps one of GN' s own.....

I actually think that getting rid of page three is as good a cause as grandparents' rights.
I never swear, let alone when I'm brushing my teeth.

So agree with you jingle and*glass or two*. a campaign against page 3 seems very trivial compared with the issue of 'Denied Contact for Grandparents' which has probably had more postings than any other subject.

What's to stop you starting a campaign yourself. If it gets enough support GN might adopt it.
I think that's what happened about page 3. Quite a lot of people had already complained about it on GN

Agree with you 100% Jings. Please don't get barred again.

I was cleaning my teeth last night and thinking of a thread about the child being taken away. And I thought, "Why don't they start a fucking campaign about something really serious like that!"

Shoot me now.

Why did I start this thread? I am probably back on the road to getting barred. Again.

I don't want to do it. But then, you could say I haven't started a business with the intent of making profits largely through the online verbal contributions of grandparents. But of course I would n't dream of saying that.

All I am saying, and I will put this in the simplest of terms so it is easily understood, is, if a grandparenting forum wishes to campaign, there might be worthisr causes than getting rid of page 3. Excellent though that cause might be. And is.