Amanda Hawkins, Celia Beckett, Jenny Castle, Christine Groothues, Edmund Sonuga-Barke, Emma Colvert, Jana Kreppner, Suzanne Stevens and Michael Rutter compared views about adoption for two groups of 11-year-old children (n = 180). The team's analyses compared the views of children according to their pre-adoption background: UK domestic adoptees placed before the age of six months versus intercountry adoptees who had experienced extreme deprivation for up to three-and-a-half years in Romania prior to placement (the Romanian group was further broken down by age at placement). Remarkably few differences were found between these groups, with the exception of two areas. Older-placed adopted children from Romania were significantly more likely to find it difficult to talk about adoption than domestic adoptees, and to feel different from their adoptive families. However, supplementary analyses suggested that these differences were due to increased levels of difficulties within the older-placed Romanian group, rather than whether they were adopted internationally or domestically. The implications of the similarities and differences between these groups for policy and practice are discussed.
BeckettCBredenkampDCastleJGroothuesC and the English and Romanian Adoptees Study Team, ‘The role of social workers in intercountry adoption: an analysis of the experience of adopters from Romania’, Adoption & Fostering23:4, pp 15–25, 1999.
2.
BeckettCMaughanBRutterMCastleJColvertEGroothuesCKreppnerJStevensSO'ConnorTSonuga-BarkeE, ‘Do the effects of early severe deprivation on cognition persist into early adolescence? Findings from the English and Romanian Adoptees study’, Child Development77:3, pp 696–711, 2006.
3.
BeckettCCastleJGroothuesCHawkinsASonuga-BarkeEColvertEKreppnerJStevensSRutterM, ‘The experience of adoption (2): the association between communicative openness and self-esteem in adoption’, Adoption & Fostering, in press.
4.
BrodzinskyD, ‘Reconceptualizing openness in adoption: implications for theory, research, and practice’, in BrodzinskyDPalaciosJ (eds), Psychological Issues in Adoption: Research and practice, Connecticut: Praeger, 2005.
5.
BrodzinskyD, ‘Family structural openness and communication openness as predictors in the adjustment of adopted children’, Adoption Quarterly9:4, pp 1–18, 2006.
6.
CastleJGroothuesCBredenkampDBeckettCO'ConnorTRutterM and the ERA study team, ‘Effects of qualities of early institutional care on cognitive attainment’, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry69:4, pp 424–37, 1999.
7.
ColvertERutterMBeckettCCastleJGroothuesCHawkinsAKreppnerJO'ConnorTStevensSSonuga-BarkeE, ‘Emotional difficulties in early adolescence following severe early deprivation: findings from the English and Romanian Adoptees study’, Development and Psychopathology, in press.
8.
Department for Education and Skills, Adoption and Children Act 2002, London: HMSO, 2002.
9.
Department for Education and Skills, Every Child Matters, London: The Stationery Office, 2003.
10.
Department for Education and Skills, Children Act 2004, London: HMSO, 2004.
11.
Department for Education and Skills, Every Child Matters: Change for children in social care, London: DfES, 2004.
12.
Department of Health, Adoption Act 1976, London: HMSO, 1976.
13.
KreppnerJRutterMBeckettCCastleJColvertEGroothuesCHawkinsAO'ConnorTStevensSSonuga-BarkeE, ‘Normality and impairment following profound early institutional deprivation: a longitudinal follow-up into early adolescence’, Developmental Psychology43, pp 931–46, 2007.
14.
KreppnerJO'ConnorTRutterM and the English and Romanian Adoptees study team, ‘Can inattention/overactivity be an institutional deprivation syndrome?’, Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology29:6, pp 513–28, 2001.
15.
MauthnerM, ‘Methodological aspects of collecting data from children: lessons from three research projects’, Children & Society11:1, pp 16–28, 1997.
16.
MendenhallTBergeJWrobelGGrotevantHMcRoyR, ‘Adolescents' satisfaction with contact in adoption’, Child & Adolescent Social Work Journal21:2, pp 175–90, 2004.
17.
MorganR, ‘About Adoption: A children's views report, Report by the Office of the Children's Rights Director’, Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI), 2006.
18.
MurrayC, ‘Children and young people's participation and non-participation in research’, Adoption & Fostering29:1, pp 57–66, 2005.
19.
RutterMKreppnerJO'ConnorT, ‘Specificity and heterogeneity in children's responses to profound institutional privation’, British Journal of Psychiatry179:2, pp 97–103, 2001.
20.
RutterMBeckettCCastleJColvertEKreppnerJMehtaMStevensSSonuga-BarkeE, ‘Effects of profound early deprivation: an overview of findings from a UK longitudinal study of Romanian adoptees’, European Journal of Developmental Psychology4:3, pp 332–50, 2007.
21.
RutterMColvertEKreppnerJBeckettCCastleJGroothuesCHawkinsAO'ConnorTStevensSSonuga-BarkeE, ‘Disinhibited attachment at 6 and 11 years: developmental course in institutionally-deprived and non-deprived adoptees’, Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry48:1, pp 17–30, 2007.
22.
ThomasCBeckfordVLoweNMurchM, Adopted Children Speaking, London: BAAF, 1999.
23.
ThomasNO'KaneC, ‘The ethics of participatory research with children’, Children & Society12:5, pp 336–48, 1998.
24.
WrobelGGrotevantHBergeJMendenhallTMcRoyR, ‘Contact in adoption: the experience of adoptive families in the USA’, Adoption & Fostering27:1, pp 57–67, 2003.
