Written evidence from A. Boorman, Open Nest Charity (CFA0107)
HOUSE OF LORDS CHILDREN AND FAMILIES ACT 2014 SELECT COMMITTEE INQURY
I am the founder of The Open Nest Charity. The charity supports those affected by legal severance from their families of origin and those who have had children removed by the state.
Myself and my family set up the charity after our experiences of being both an adoptive and foster family. I adopted a child aged 5 and subsequently long term fostered her sibling.
Both children had significant needs due to their traumatic experiences within their birth family where their mother, a care leaver was damaged by abusive systemic failures and subsequent lack of support when she became a parent. Most sadly both children had additional severe trauma and damage that was done to them within the care system that presumably sought to improve their lives post removal from their family of birth.
Very shortly after adopting I searched for the children's parents and opened up
the adoption which was an order with no contact arrangements. We worked together as two families in the best interest of the children. Support to us all was severely lacking and at times negligent.
Those children are now adults and shoulder the burden of mistakes made in the name of care.
I have previously submitted evidence to The House of Lords during its select committee on adoption legislation in November 2012.
I more recently, and almost 10 years later, took part in The Family Justice Councils Adoption in the 21st Century conference where Sir Andrew McFarlane, President of the Family Division and Head of Family Justice viewed my evidence as particularly relevant to the current adoption policy debates.
I would like the opportunity to present some evidence based concerns below based up my 23 years experience of adoption legislation both personally as an adoptive parent and professionally as a charity trustee. As a charity worker I have access to extensive research material and in particular experience of listening to the evidence of adopted people and birth families.
2. Severance from families of origin often means severance from identity and history. Some adoption practices can be shown to breach the human rights of those adopted. There is a real possibility that adopted people may have legal recourse against systems that breached human rights much as those who were removed from unmarried mothers based upon moral crusades needed official apology. Forced adoption is not a thing of the past.
3. Legislators on adoption policy need to decide what situation is one that requires complete severance without any ongoing contact. For example many parents who lose their children are victims of domestic violence, are care leavers badly parented by the state themselves or have learning disabilities and no support. What situation does our society consider as so serious that birth parents must never see their child or children again. How ‘bad’ must a parent be for a child to lose them and all wider family members and friends?
4. Adopted people continue to remain on the margins of discourse on adoption. Very few adoption boards or support charities are led by adopted people. Until this is fully rectified adoption policy and legislation will fail to meet the needs of those that are most affected by adoption. The fact this is not happening despite constant campaigning by groups and individuals is in my view hampering real progress towards ensuring children rights are upheld. Support to adult adopted individuals is also compromised when the cultural view is that adoption is great and the quicker it happens and the more it happens is taken entirely as a positive.
Amanda Boorman
May 2022