Search results

AbstractThis paper was concerned with the changing nature of adoptive kinship. The analysis was located in the context of current sociological and anthropological theory and parallels were drawn with other alternative family forms i.e. gay and lesbian families, and families formed by new reproductive technologies.Adoption as a family form has largely been neglected in sociological and anthropological literature, yet the changing nature of adoption, particularly in relation to open adoption and gay and lesbian adoption, means that it has an important contribution to make to new discourses of kinship. Adoption is far more likely to feature in psychological and child welfare literature than that on the family and kinship, yet it is a unique addition to the heterogeneous family landscape with a profound impact on cultural definitions of family and kinship.By considering contemporary adoption practice through a social construction and kinship theory lens, the paper argues that new kinship studies are helpful in conceptualizing adoptive kinship. Adoption also has a valuable and significant contribution to make to contemporary kinship theory.

ABSTRACTWhilst there is a general international trend towards more open adoption, there is considerable variation between agencies in the extent to which they are prepared to support different forms of contact arrangements. Agencies have a pivotal role to play in decisions about contact and early planning that is integrated into the assessment and preparation of prospective adopters is fundamental to its success. This paper reports on adoptive parents' experiences of the process of preparation and planning for direct, face‐to‐face contact. During preparation, agencies were clearly getting the message across to prospective adopters about the importance of contact for the child's well being. However, insufficient attention was directed at helping adopters to anticipate their feelings towards birth relatives and their responses to the kinds of management issues that might arise after adoption. There was considerable variation in the extent to which adopters were involved in the process of planning detailed contact arrangements, and this seemed to bear relevance on the success or otherwise of subsequent contact arrangements.

Janette Logan reports on the findings of a research study which examined the experiences of adoptive parents and birth parents who were involved in an information exchange scheme. While both acknowledged the importance of exchanging information, different views were expressed as to how the exchange should happen and people's experiences were considerably influenced by their pattern and process of exchange. This study provides empirical evidence to suggest that the exchange of information is by no means straightforward and easy to accomplish in a way that satisfies the needs — in particular the long-term needs — of those involved in the adoption triangle.

Few children nowadays are placed for adoption with no form of contact planned with birth relatives and it has become common professional practice to advocate direct rather than indirect contact. Practice has outstripped evidence in this respect and not enough is known about how contact arrangements actually work out, particularly for older children adopted from state care. Such children have often experienced neglect, and sometimes abuse, and have frequently been adopted without parental agreement. Based on research with a large number of adoptive parents, children and birth relatives, After

Providing a comprehensive understanding of adoption issues and based on research with a large number of adoptive parents, children and birth relatives, the authors consider the impact of direct post-adoption contact on all concerned.