Support Needs and Post-Adoption Resources for Adopted Adults: A Systematic Review

2019 ◽  
Vol 50 (6) ◽  
pp. 1775-1795
Author(s):  
Yolanda Sánchez-Sandoval ◽  
Natalia Jiménez-Luque ◽  
Sandra Melero ◽  
Violeta Luque ◽  
Laura Verdugo
Keyword(s):  
Support Groups ◽  
Selection Criteria ◽  
Adoptive Parents ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Support Needs ◽  
Adult Adoptees ◽  
Adoptive Families ◽  
International Adoptions ◽  
Birth Family ◽  
Attachment Development

Abstract Post-adoption services provide guidance to adoptive families concerning common and specific circumstances. Despite adoption is a lifelong experience, most of the post-adoption resources are oriented towards children, adolescents and their adoptive parents. However, it is also necessary to focus on the demands and interventions with adult adoptees. The aim of this article is to review adult adoptees’ demands for post-adoption resources, applicants’ characteristics and resources offered to them. A systematic search was conducted in several databases, finding forty studies that fulfilled the selection criteria (about adults, domestic/international adoptions and published between 2005 and 2018). The included studies showed mainly three needs: contact with birth family, ethnic identity and birth culture, and psychological support. Additionally, adoptees who demand post-adoption resources are a heterogeneous group. This review collects structured programmes focused on different topics: search for origins, attachment development and professionals’ training in adoption. In addition, we also found some specific post-adoption services and other tools, such as support groups or cultural events. Finally, adoptees also have access to other resources that are not specifically for them, such as mental health services. The scarce existence of evidence-based interventions is an important weakness in this work. Recommendations for future research and practice are included.

scholarly journals Post-adoption Contact and Relationships with Birth Family Members

2021 ◽  
pp. 151-197
Author(s):  
Harriet Ward ◽  
Lynne Moggach ◽  
Susan Tregeagle ◽  
Helen Trivedi
Keyword(s):  
Online Survey ◽  
Family Members ◽  
Adoptive Parents ◽  
Adult Adoptees ◽  
Adoptive Families ◽  
Birth Parents ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Birth Family ◽  
Children's Identity

AbstractThe chapter draws on data collected through responses to an online survey concerning 93 adoptees (44% of the cohort), completed on average 18 years after placement, and interviews focusing on 24 adult adoptees. Face-to-face post-adoption contact was a legal requirement. After placement with adoptive families, 93% of adoptees had contact with birth family members; at follow-up, 56% still saw at least one member of their birth family; 69% of both adoptees and adoptive parents thought contact was ultimately beneficial. There was minimal evidence of contact with birth parents destabilising placements. However, it introduced a ‘painful transparency’ for all parties and could be problematic. Over time, contact supported children’s identity needs by incorporating knowledge of their antecedents and could mitigate their difficulties with attachment, separation and loss. It forced all parties to engage with one another and helped adoptees achieve closure.

scholarly journals “I’m More Than Just Adopted”: Stories of Genealogy in Intercountry Adoptive Families

Genealogy ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 25
Author(s):  
Sarah Richards
Keyword(s):  
Hague Convention ◽  
Adoptive Parents ◽  
Adopted Children ◽  
Intercountry Adoption ◽  
Adoptive Families ◽  
Family Work ◽  
Birth Country ◽  
Parents And Children ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Birth Family

In contrast to the historical ‘blank slate’ approach to adoption, current policy places significant emphasis on providing children with knowledge; family history; biological connections; stories, a genealogy upon which to establish an authentic identity. The imperative for this complex, and often incomplete, genealogy is also explicit within the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption established in 1993 to ensure that intercountry adopted children will be provided with a genealogical ‘heritage’. Yet, despite the recurring dominance of this approach, ‘heritage’ remains an ambiguous dictum which holds the expectation that adopted children should have access to any available birth/first family information and acquire cultural competence about an often distant and removed birth country. Providing such heritage becomes the responsibility of intercountry adoptive parents. It is therefore unsurprising that this role has become part of how intercountry adoptive parents perform and display their parenting and family practices before and after adoption (Richards 2014a; 2018). Such family work is explicit in the stories that parents and children coconstruct about birth family, abandonment, China, and the rights of adopted children to belong first and foremost to a birth country. Using qualitative data provided by a social worker, eleven girls aged between five and twelve, and their parents, this article explores the role and changing significance of narratives as familial strategies for delivering such heritage obligations. Outlined in this discussion is the compulsion to provide a genealogical heritage by adoptive parents which can ultimately be resisted by their daughters as they seek alternative and changing narratives through which to construct their belongings and identities.

Psychological interventions for adoptive parents: a systematic review

2018 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 6-21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jayne Harris-Waller ◽  
Charlotte Granger ◽  
Misbah Hussain
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Psychological Intervention ◽  
Outcome Measurement ◽  
Child Outcomes ◽  
Adoptive Parents ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Psychological Interventions ◽  
Multiple Sources ◽  
Systematic Review Methodology ◽  
Adoptive Families

A systematic review methodology was used to evaluate research regarding psychological interventions for adoptive parents. The effectiveness of the diverse intervention models scrutinised was found to be mixed with regard to a range of parent and child outcomes. When service user feedback was sought, psychological interventions were found to be acceptable to adoptive parents. Overall, findings were weakened by multiple sources of potential bias in the studies reviewed. Further research is needed, with particular attention to the method, site and timing of outcome measurement, before firm clinical recommendations can be made regarding the relative benefit of specific models of psychological intervention for adoptive parents. Implications for future research are discussed with reference to the unique contextual challenges of conducting clinical studies with adoptive families.

scholarly journals Introduction: International Issues and Debates Concerning Adoption

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-38
Author(s):  
Harriet Ward ◽  
Lynne Moggach ◽  
Susan Tregeagle ◽  
Helen Trivedi
Keyword(s):  
Adoptive Parents ◽  
Adult Adoptees ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Out Of Home Care ◽  
History Of ◽  
International Issues ◽  
Birth Family ◽  
Aboriginal Children ◽  
Children In Care

AbstractA history of systemic injustices and a lack of transparency have influenced public perceptions of domestic adoption. This book aims to introduce more empirical evidence into the debate by exploring the value of open adoption, as practised in Australia, as a route to permanence for abused and neglected children in out-of-home care who cannot safely return to their birth families. International evidence about the outcomes of adoption and foster care is discussed. The chapter introduces the Barnardos Australia Find-a-Family programme which has been finding adoptive homes since 1986 for non-Aboriginal children in care who are identified as ‘hard to place’. Regular post-adoption face-to-face contact with birth family members is an integral part of the adoption plan. The methodology for evaluating the outcomes for 210 children placed through the programme included case and court file analysis, a follow-up survey and interviews with adoptive parents and adult adoptees.

Communication Privacy Management in Open Adoption Relationships: Negotiating Co-ownership across In-person and Mediated Communication

2021 ◽  
pp. 009365022199847
Author(s):  
Colleen Warner Colaner ◽  
Alyssa L. Bish ◽  
Maria Butauski ◽  
Alexie Hays ◽  
Haley Kranstuber Horstman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Private Information ◽  
Perceived Risk ◽  
Adoptive Parents ◽  
Privacy Management ◽  
Open Adoption ◽  
Adoptive Families ◽  
Communication Privacy Management ◽  
Birth Family ◽  
Communication Privacy

Open adoption relationships are rife with privacy dilemmas and fuzzy boundaries, which require ongoing coordination of private disclosures as a result. The present study employed communication privacy management (CPM) theory to examine adoptive parents’ ( N = 354) private disclosures with the birth family across in-person and mediated (i.e., texting and social media) contexts. SEM analysis revealed that adoptive families who were more private and were concerned about the birth family sharing private information with others viewed disclosures to the birth family as risky. These privacy concerns related to adoptive parents being more clear with the birth family about preferences for sharing that private information with others. More social media contact between birth and adoptive parents predicted increased perceptions of risk of disclosure to birth parents. Results advance CPM theorizing by underscoring the motivational bases of perceived risk, the importance of anticipated boundary turbulence, and the nuanced privacy management processes within communication modes.

Working together works well: A longitudinal evaluation of a family-based placement program for children with a disability and very high support needs

2004 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 27-33
Author(s):  
Julie Hind ◽  
Judith Woodland
Keyword(s):  
Good Practice ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Support Needs ◽  
Permanency Planning ◽  
Longitudinal Evaluation ◽  
Working Together ◽  
Family Based ◽  
Birth Family ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
High Support

This paper is based on a three-year longitudinal evaluation of a family-based placement and support program for children with disabilities and high support needs. Particular lessons emerged about the importance of partnerships: between caseworker and alternative family; the alternative family and the birth family; and the caseworker and the birth family.The evaluation used case studies, following ten children through the life of the study. A qualitative approach drew on people's experiences to understand individual perspectives and to identify patterns and themes to gain insight into the factors contributing to success.The study was informed by international literature, including: Maluccio et al (1983, 1986) and Smith (1995) in relation to permanency planning; Thoburn (1986, 1990, 1994) and Wedge (1986) in relation to hard-to-place children; and Argent and Kerrane (1997) who demonstrate that continuing contact between birth and alternative families can work well with support from workers.This article focuses on one part of the evaluation - the development of relationships. The relationship between the caseworker and the alternative family is a key to the success of the placement. In the best examples of good practice, the relationship is one of partnership, with both partners having the interests of the child as their central focus.The partnership is not evident in dealing with birth families. We note the strongest relationships are where birth families have an ongoing role in caring for their child. In some cases, the alternative family takes on a role of supporting the birth family's ongoing involvement with their child. The paper explores the different relationships and points to further possible areas of future research.

scholarly journals The support needs and experiences of newly formed adoptive families: findings from the Wales Adoption Study

2018 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 58-75 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Meakings ◽  
Heather Ottaway ◽  
Amanda Coffey ◽  
Claire Palmer ◽  
Julie Doughty ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Family Relationships ◽  
Work Practice ◽  
Social Work Practice ◽  
Adoptive Parents ◽  
Support Needs ◽  
Adoptive Families ◽  
Adoption Study ◽  
Adoptive Family ◽  
Main Support ◽  
Children's Identity

This article reports on findings from the Wales Adoption Study which used a sequential, mixed-method design to explore the early support needs and experiences of newly formed adoptive families. Ninety-six adoptive parents completed a questionnaire four months post-placement and a sub-sample of 40 parents was interviewed in-depth five months thereafter. The main support needs of the families fell within five key domains: promoting children's health and development; strengthening family relationships; fostering children's identity; managing contact with birth parents and significant others; and financial and legal assistance. While the age and developmental stage of the child placed for adoption often influenced the nature of the support required across the various domains, the need for some form of support in every family was universal. Most, however, were not facing insurmountable difficulties. Arguably, many of the support needs identified could have been anticipated as they illustrate the complexities of ‘normal’ adoptive family life. The implications for social work practice are discussed.

scholarly journals Intentional Kinship through Caring Relationships, Heritage, and Identity: Adoptive Parents’ Inclusion of Non-Biological and Non-Affinal Relationships on Family Maps

Genealogy ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 85
Author(s):  
Pedro Alexandre Costa ◽  
Alessio Gubello ◽  
Fiona Tasker
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Data ◽  
Adoptive Parents ◽  
Open Adoption ◽  
Visual Data ◽  
Adoptive Families ◽  
Family Network ◽  
Adoptive Family ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Birth Family ◽  
Family Contact

Structural open adoption has been beneficial to adoptees in integrating their birth heritage and identity. Adoptive parents also may sometimes seek out others who are neither related biologically nor through partnership to support their child in developing an integrated sense of identity. To what extent do these intentional kinship relationships become incorporated within the adoptive family network and how do adoptive parents view their role in their child’s life? Qualitative data on family inclusion of non-biological and non-affinal kin are reported from interviews with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and heterosexual adoptive parents (n = 25 families). Analyses of verbal and visual data from family map drawing interviews indicated that adoptive parents from the different types of families similarly included intentional kin in their conceptualization of their child’s family. Adopted children’s foster carers, family friends, other adoptive families, and other children and adults were specifically included on family maps to facilitate children’s knowledge of different aspects of their birth heritage and adoption story. The implications of open adoption policy therefore move beyond considerations of only birth family contact. In practice, open adoption procedures convey a broad message to families that appear to widen adoptive parents’ conceptualization of kinship.

Open Adoption and Diverse Families

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abbie E. Goldberg
Keyword(s):  
Family Relationships ◽  
Skin Color ◽  
Adoptive Parents ◽  
Open Adoption ◽  
Adoptive Families ◽  
Birth Parents ◽  
Time Points ◽  
Birth Family ◽  
Physical Features ◽  
Over Time

This book traces the experiences of diverse adoptive families—including lesbian, gay, and heterosexual parent families, and families who adopted through foster care and private adoption—as they manage birth family relationships across their children’s childhood. It explores the diversity among families in how open adoption is envisioned, enacted, and experienced over time. The author uses interview data from four time points spanning preadoption to 8 years postadoption to address a variety of questions, including: How do adoptive parents feel about openness when they first learn about it, and why do their feelings change over time? How do adoptive parents’ initial feelings about birth parents inform the types of relationships that they form with birth family? How do adoptive parents who strongly valued openness cope with and handle the disappointment of matching with birth parents who do not desire and/or are unable to enact a similar level of openness? What types of complex, unexpected, and nuanced trajectories of contact unfold over time between adoptive families and birth families? What types of boundary challenges occur between adoptive and birth family members, offline and online? How do adoptive parents talk about adoption with their children, and how does this vary depending on level and type of contact? How and to what extent do adoptive parents invoke environment versus genetics (i.e., birth family) in articulating children’s strengths, challenges, and physical features (e.g., height, skin color)? How do the experiences of adoptive parents differ by parent gender and sexual orientation?

Issues of Confidentiality in Adoption: The Role of the Pediatrician

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1994 ◽  
Vol 93 (2) ◽  
pp. 339-341 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Birth Certificate ◽  
The United States ◽  
Adoptive Parents ◽  
State Agency ◽  
Adopted Children ◽  
Court Order ◽  
Adult Adoptees ◽  
Birth Parents ◽  
Birth Parent ◽  
Birth Family

Adoption practices in the United States have been designed to protect each member of the adoption triad. Traditionally they preserve the anonymity and privacy of the birth parents. These practices have supported the concept that adoptive parents need to establish a relationship with their new child without concern of unwanted interference by members of the child's birth family. In addition, they emphasize protecting adopted children from potentially disturbing facts about their birth families and/or psychological confusion that might arise from any continued relationship with their birth families. To protect confidentiality in adoption, all records of the adoption proceedings are sealed. The child's original birth certificate is sealed, and a new one is issued that typically contains only the child's adoptive name and substitutes the names of the adoptive parents for the birth parents. The original birth certificate and adoption records can be opened only by a court order and only for "just cause." Recently, however, three states have developed open adoption records, and more than 30 other states have developed mutual consent registries.1 The exact statutes regarding mutual consent registries vary from state to state, but the basic concept allows adult adoptees and birth parents to register their desire to meet each other. If a mutual consent is achieved, identifying information can be released and a meeting may be facilitated. Some states require both parties to register independently. Other states allow a state agency to locate the birth parent(s) to determine whether consent will be granted to release information to the adult adoptee.1

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document