Following on from their article, ‘Infant adoption in England: a longitudinal account of social and cognitive progress' (Adoption & Fostering 24:3, 2000), Jenny Castle, Celia Beckett, Christine Groothues and the English and Romanian Adoptees (ERA) study team focus attention on the same group in relation to the policies and practices of social services and voluntary adoption agencies at placement. From interviews with adoptive mothers of a sample of 52 infants, placed between 1989 and 1991, they examine differences between the two sectors regarding issues such as contact, links with family background, openness and post-placement support. The authors also report on adoptive parents' opinions about the provision of pre- and post-adoption services. They conclude that co-operation between social services and voluntary adoption agencies could improve both services.
BrodzinskyA B, ‘Surrendering an infant for adoption: the birth mother experience’, in BrodzinskyMSchechterM D (eds), The Psychology of Adoption, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990.
2.
CastleJBeckettCGroothuesC, ‘Infant adoption: social and cognitive outcome’, Adoption & Fostering24:3, pp 26–35, 2000.
3.
CurtisP A, ‘The dialectics of open versus closed adoption of infants’, Child Welfare65, pp 437–45, 1986.
4.
DanceCCullenDCollierF, Focus on Adoption: A snapshot on adoption patterns in England — 1995, London: BAAF, 1997.
5.
Department of Health, Adoption Act 1976, London: HMSO, 1976.
6.
GairS, ‘Adoptive mothers' attitudes to contact: highlights from an Australian study’, Adoption & Fostering23:3, pp 38–47, 1999.
7.
GrotevantH D, ‘Coming to terms with adoption: the construction of identity from adolescence into adulthood’, Adoption Quarterly1, pp 3–27, 1997.
8.
HarperJ, ‘What does she look like? What children want to know about their birth parents’, Adoption & Fostering17:2, pp 27–29, 1993.
9.
HoweD, Patterns of Adoption, Oxford: Blackwell Science, 1998.
10.
IvaldiG, Children Adopted from Care: An examination of agency adoptions in England — 1996, London: BAAF, 1998.
11.
IvaldiG, Children and Families in the Voluntary Sector: An overview of child placement and adoption work by the voluntary adoption agencies in England (1994–98), London: BAAF, 2000.
12.
KedwardCLuckockBLawsonH, ‘Mediation and post-adoption contact: the early experience of the Post-Adoption Centre Contact Mediation Service’, Adoption & Fostering23:3, pp 16–26, 1999.
13.
LindleyB, ‘Partnership or panic? A survey of adoption agency practice on working with birth families in the adoption process’, Adoption & Fostering21:4, pp 23–33, 1997/98.
14.
NeilB, ‘What research can tell us about contact after adoption: what we can have some confidence about’, Unpublished handout accompanying BAAF talk, 1997.
15.
QuintonDRushtonADanceCMayesD, ‘Contact between children placed away from home and their birth parents: research issues and evidence’, Clinical Child Psychology & Psychiatry2:3, pp 393–413, 1997.
16.
QuintonDSelwynJ, ‘Contact with birth parents in adoption: a response to Ryburn’, Child & Family Law Quarterly10:4, pp 349–61, 1998.
17.
RaynorL, The Adopted Child Comes of Age, London: George Allen & Unwin, 1980.
18.
RyburnM, ‘Adopted children's identity and information needs’, Children & Society9:3, pp 41–64, 1995.
19.
RyburnM, ‘In whose best interests? Post-adoption contact with the birth family’, Child & Family Law Quarterly10:1, pp 53–70, 1998.
20.
SiegelD H, ‘Open adoption of infants: adoptive parents' perceptions of advantages and disadvantages’, Social Work38, pp 15–23, 1993.
21.
Social Services Inspectorate, Moving Goalposts: A study of post-adoption contact in the North of England, London: Department of Health Publications, 1995.
22.
Social Services Inspectorate, Meeting the Challenges of Changes in Adoption: Inspection of voluntary adoption agencies, London: Department of Health Publications, 1999.
23.
TriseliotisJ, In Search of Origins, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1973.
