Adoption practice in the 1990s has seen a substantial increase in adoptive families where there continues to be contact with families of origin. This study by Margaret Sykes, based on postal questionnaire responses from 30 adoptive parents in 17 families, followed up by interviews with 15 adopters in nine families, considers adoptive families at least two years after placement, and aims to enhance our understanding of the meaning of these contact experiences for adoptive parents. The analysis of the narratives from the interviews has considered 1) the impact on parenthood, exploring themes of control, entitlement to parent, communication, bonding and ownership, and 2) the relationships between adoptive and birth parents, examining themes of fear, anger and blame, competition and empathy. The findings suggest that the passage of time and a greater sense of control assist in establishing confidence, while adopters develop a more empathic view towards birth mothers. This has emotional costs to the adoptive mother. The study suggests that contact is more likely to be sustained where adoptive parents are able to develop a coherence in their understanding of their own past experiences. The implications for practice are discussed
AinsworthM D S, ‘Attachments and other affectional bonds across the life cycle’, in MurrayParkes CStevensonHinde JMarrisP (eds), Attachment Across the Life Cycle, London: Routledge, 1991.
2.
BarthR PBerryM, Adoption and Disruption: Rates, risks and responses, Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter, 1988.
3.
BeekM, ‘The reality of face-to-face contact after adoption’, Adoption & Fostering18:4, pp 39–43, 1994.
4.
BelbasN, ‘Staying in touch: empathy in open adoptions’, Smith College Studies in Social Work57:3, 1987.
5.
BerryMCavazosDylla D JBarthR JNeedellB, ‘The role of open adoption in the adjustment of adopted children and their families’, Children & Youth Services Review20:1/2, pp 151–71, 1998.
6.
BorlandMO'HaraGTriseliotisJ, Adoption and Fostering: The outcome of permanent family placements in two Scottish local authorities, Edinburgh: Scottish Office, 1991.
7.
CarterEMcGoldrickM, The Family Life Cycle, New York: Gardiner Press, 1980.
8.
DemickJWapnerS, ‘Open and closed adoption: a developmental conceptualisation’, Family Process27:2, pp 229–49, 1988.
9.
Department of Health, ‘Moving Goalposts’: A study of post-adoption contact in the north of England, London: HMSO, 1995.
10.
Department of Health, ‘For Children's Sake’, Part 2: An inspection of local authority post-placement and post-adoption services, London: HMSO, 1997.
11.
DominickC, Early Contacts in Adoption: Contact between birth mothers and adoptive mothers at the time and after the adoption, Wellington, NZ: Dept. of Social Welfare, 1988.
12.
FratterJ, ‘Parties in the triangle’, Adoption & Fostering15:4, pp 91–8, 1991.
13.
FratterJ, Adoption with Contact: Implications for policy and practice, London: BAAF, 1996.
14.
FratterJRoweJSapsfordDThoburnJ, Permanent Family Placement: A decade of experience, London: BAAF, 1991.
15.
GartonAsh T, The File: A personal history, London: Harper Collins, 1997.
16.
GilliganC, In a Different Voice: Psychological theory and women's development, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1982.
17.
GoldsteinJFreudASolnitA, Beyond the Best Interests of the Child, New York: Free Press, 1973.
18.
GoldsteinJFreudASolnitA, Before the Best Interests of the Child, London: Burnett Books, 1980.
19.
GorrellBarnes GThompsonPDanielGBurchhardtN, Growing up in Stepfamilies, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998.
20.
GrotevantHMcRoyREldeCFravelD, ‘Adoptive family system dynamics: variations by level of openness in the adoption’, Family Process33:2, pp 125–46, 1994.
21.
HajelFRosenbergE, ‘The family life cycle of adoptive families’, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry61:1, pp 78–85, 1991.
22.
HallG, ‘Adoption and contact with birth families’, Adoption & Fostering15:3, pp 40–42, 1991.
23.
HoweD, Adopters on Adoption: Reflections on parenthood and children, London: BAAF, 1996.
24.
HughesB, ‘Openness and contact in adoption: a child-centred perspective’, British Journal of Social Work25:6, pp 729–47, 1995.
25.
IwaniekM, ‘A study of open adoption’, Unpublished manuscript, Petone, New Zealand, 1987.
26.
KirkD, Shared Fate: A theory of adoption and mental health, New York: Free Press, 1964.
27.
KraftAPalumboJWoodsPMitchellDSchmidtP M, ‘Some theoretical considerations on confidential adoptions’, Child & Adolescent Social Work2:3, pp 139–53, 1985.
28.
LoweNMurchMBorkowskiMWeaverABeckfordVThomasC, Supporting Adoption: Reframing the approach, London: BAAF, 1999.
29.
MainM, ‘Metacognitive knowledge, metacognitive monitoring and singular (coherent) v multiple (incoherent) models of attachment: findings and directions for future research’, in MurrayParkes CStevensonHinde JMarrisP (eds), Attachment Across the Life Cycle, London: Routledge, 1992.
30.
McRoyRGrotevantHWhiteK, Openness in Adoption: New practices, new issues, New York: Praeger, 1988.
31.
McWhinnieA, Adopted Children: How they grow up, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1967.
32.
MillerJ B, Toward a New Psychology of Women, Boston: Beacon Press, 1976.
33.
MitchellA, Children in the Middle, London: Tavistock, 1985.
34.
PannorRBaranASoroskyA, ‘Birth parents who relinquished their babies for adoption revisited’, Family Process17:3, pp 329–37, 1978.
35.
PenniePBestF, How the Black Family is Pathologised by the Social Services Systems, London: Association of Black Social Workers and Allied Professionals, 1990.
