Contact with FC after placement

We were told to phone them on the first night and to see each othr within 6 weeks... Then were completely left to our own devices.
I email both sets of FCs photos and send cards from time to time and we all meet up every 3-4 months

And the two older goes have been back to FC 1 house on several occasions

I think a lot of wise words already said really, particularly that there is no set formula that will work for every child.  I would raise a couple of points though (would you expect any less from me-probably not! ).

there is a school of thought out there that would say that early and frequent contact initially following a new placement is usually the best way to go, but does also say that it has to be done in the manner that mayan's fc's have, in a manner that encourages the positive relationship with the new parent/carer, ie giving 'permission' to move on.  and really adoption is probably the only time we force children to sever all ties with people they have loved, lost and were probably the first, sometimes only, stable and positive influence on their lives, and yet both the ss, and most adopters, recognise the need for post placement contact (albeit mostly letterbox) with the birth families that have often inflicted serious harm unwittingly or deliberately on their children, and it does make me wonder what this rather odd decision making means for the children themselves, what they learn about the value of loving and stable relationships?  sadly I have never known this to be the route taken with any child moved within this authority.  it was the planned route for the bbs but her new carers put paid to that and refused to allow it to happen and nothing I heard post placement encouraged me that they made the right decision there.  it is also said that where contact is not allowed that the need for it can become disproportionate, but that where it is allowed to take place, with carers who can be positive and allow the child to move on, the need for it naturally diminishes over time.  I know the route I prefer the sound of!

another point is that everyone at some point in their lives wants to know about their past and frankly for the majority of adopted children, even those adopted as babies, there will be memories that as adoptive parents we can never share with our children becoz we weren't there and best will in the world its not possible for fc's to record every single memory they share with their foster child.  the point here being that maintaining links with previous carers could be of huge (or small!) benefit to the child, or parent, in the future and cutting all ties early on means it is so much harder to build those bridges again in the future if you need them.  I needed them for my AS and it wasn't possible becoz of the nature of his adoption to speak to people who knew him before I did and it caused him, and me, some considerable difficulties for a few years as he struggled with his sense of who he is and was.  not suggesting that face to face contact has to be the answer for this one, but parents maintaining contact with the fc, even if the children are unaware of it, via emails, Christmas cards etc, just to touch base from time to time, could be a useful thing for adoptive parents to do (and for most fc's its also appreciated as the majority of us really do love to see how 'our' babies are growing and getting on even years down the line.  one of mine sang happy birthday to me yesterday via a short video, was really sweet!).

and a final point, while I appreciate that for some children foster care wasn't the safe and stable environment it should have been, for the vast majority it was, even if its a different kind of parenting that you as a parent would give, even if they fed them food you'd consider junk, even if they dressed them in shabby clothes or let them go to sleep when they wanted rather than sticking to a solid routine. for the majority of children foster care was infinitely better than the birth home and they were, are, still loved.  and one thing I really hate to see is the posts where the parent stops, or doesn't start, post placement contact becoz they didn't get on with the foster carers themselves.  the relationship to preserve in the initial phase of adoption is the one the children have with the foster carers and that should not depend on whether or not the new adoptive parents like the fcs or not or got on famously well. we hear a lot about fc's giving children 'permission' to move on, and that is right and proper and as it should be, adoptive parents also need to give their children 'permission' to grieve the loss of fc and to maintain that relationship, albeit in a different form to previously, and to support them through that. and again, I know most adopters do do this, but sadly many also don't (I know fc's who also don't do well at this when taking in new placements and moving children on to other carers/families).

anyway, that's my 'couple' of points!

AS had been with his foster carer's since birth and they were fantastic - and it was also obvious just how much they loved him and how settled he was with them.  We were advised to meet up fairly quickly and the foster family visited us at home within the first couple of weeks and AS was almost shaking with excitement to see them.  We've subsequently met up with them fairly frequently.  They have special guardianship of a little girl with complex medical problems and she was very close to AS and they've visited a number of times so the children can play together.  They've also come along to AS's birthday and adoption ceremony and I will always feel like they are related to him in some way and a huge part of who he is.

I do feel we were very lucky to have such a good relationship - however, I think it was partly because we were very open to the prospect of meeting again and I do think it is sad when I hear that some adopters feel too threatened to meet up with foster family again, even though they got on well.  I think AS has benefited so much from fairly frequent contact - and it has allowed some continuity to his life.  We also find out something new about his early life everytime we meet.  I think I'll always be grateful for how much they loved AS and yet were still able to support us and give him permission to move on and bond with us.

I think every case is individual and it depends on how welcoming the FC are to the new adoptive parents. I suppose that comes with experience and the good FC are brilliant at this. Also the FC has to help the child move on and unfortunately from reading the boards over the years, it does seem as if "some" FC's find it hard to let go and if new parents feel this, then they are less likely to stay in touch with the FC as they are probably worried about disrupting any newly formed bonds/attachment with their new child. The most successful contact is where the FC allows the child to move on.

I had every intention of staying in touch with my DD's award winning FC, but after some news that came to light about a month after DD's came home regarding another child who was living with FC at the time, I'm afraid all contact with FC was ceased immediately. I cannot post about it for legal reasons, but to say I was appalled is an understatement and the SS coverup afterwards was the bit that upset me the most as she had been on their books for 38 years!

So with the best will in the world, sometimes staying in touch is not always possible.

The first time, over 12 years ago, nothing was officially arranged or said. FC herself made it clear no contact for 6 months, which was just her view, I guess. I felt the need to maintain some contact so did visit after 6 months, but dd was a baby and obviously remembered nothing. (I found it hard to see the new foster child treated in exactly the same way my dd had been - I know fcs will have their preferred routine but it made me feel that dd had just been an item that was processed in a particular way - I had always felt fc treated her well but matter-of-factly, not doing anything special with her but that was probably just because I wouldn't treat a child like that)

Second time, 7 years ago, we were given an exact timetable as part of the intros plan. I can't recall all details now but think it was a visit at our house within a few days, maybe a week or so, then another after 6 weeks. Both went well though dd2, then aged 2, didn't seem bothered when they left. She had only been with the fcs for 6 months and knowing how long she took to really bond with us, I don't believe she was really 'attached' as such. We have kept up with her fc ever since - initially we would meet a few times a year, now it's probably every 18 months to 2 years. We have been to visit them ever since as fc has a number of young foslings and it's harder for her to bring them to us - also easier for me to control the meeting. Once was at the fc's home where dd had lived - now dd did react to that and regressed afterwards - but they have moved house since, so it is now neutral territory as far as dd is concerned.

Interestingly dd1 has never shown the slightest interest in her fcs (I keep in touch at Christmas but they moved a long way away shortly after dd was placed with us, so another meeting would be awkward to arrange), but dd2 often mentions her fc and laments from time to time that we stole her from them!!! I feel this would never have happened if we hadn't kept in touch, as I am sure her vague feelings of loss relate to more than the loss of that fc, to whom I don't believe she was deeply attached - but maybe she would just have expressed those feelings differently. Dd1 focuses more on bf though has no contact or memory of them.

On the plus side, it is quite easy to arrange to see dd2's fc now for a short visit and it does satisfy dd for a while - also her reaction to fc is no different to the way she would react to any friend of mine she only saw occasionally, so I feel one day she might come to accept she doesn't actually miss the fc as she claims to do sometimes - and would perhaps move on to examine other issues from her past (bm is of minor interest to her). I think what she is really expressing is a sense of rejection (naturally enough, she experienced more changes of fc than most children placed for adoption) - this is probably exacerbated by the fact fc has now adopted one of her foster children and has others on long term placement. It might be better to cut all ties in this case but I think it's too late for that now.

Sadly, although the children had stayed with the foster parents for three years, the experience was a very unhappy one. They had been physically and emotionally abused and very neglected. My son wanted to leave with me the first day I met him. After the children came home with me they never mentioned the foster parents again except to remember unhappy experiences. I passed on my concerns about the foster placement to the social workers.

Lily x

My thinking is different

I think for little ones then short gap between leaving fc and contact is important as then they haven't forgotten and it's all there for them it's not picking a closed wound, so to speak but gently settling things.

For older children, I don't think you should have contact face to face for a year
Phone inbetween etc
But they do need to do a lot more adjustment and bonding and belonging stuff at different levels and it's unfair I think to confuse them with contact like visits.

We have good relations with our 2s fc
Speak roughly each term and see each other every now and then,
They are lovely people

Well FC just been in touch to find out how things are. She Just said time has rushed away and I can understand that. So LM will hear about it after our holidays!!!

I do think you have a point LOB's about being damned if you do and damned if you don't.

What I find unforgivable is when adopters make promises that they never intend to fulfil, like saying they will stay in touch when they have no intention of doing so, I think that is unforgivable. I don't think it is too much for any adopter to include their childs FC in a round robin letter once a year just to let them know how their child is doing, where's the harm in that, and it's the least you can do to show some thanks for loving your child for "X" amount of months/years.

I would only think it forgivable to not stay in touch if intro's were horrendous or if FC was obstructive in any way and theses cases are rare thankfully. The vast majority of FC do a fabulous job and an annual letter is the least adopters could do as a thank you.

I personally would not expect a FC to stay in touch with every child he/she had cared for as that would be an impossible task and has to be lead by the adopters contact in the first place as FC would not want to be seen to be intruding.

DD's had been with fc for over 2 1/2 yrs.  DD's lived a long way away from us so our intros were over a few months.  We would stay in hotel and spend weekends with DD's but they returning home to fc each evening.  We then had the weekend sleepover and then they came home.  FC made us feel very welcome and part of the family, but didn't seem to want to continue contact.  Fizz was desperate to ring them once a week (as sw had allowed this) but think the fc didn't really like it so it fizzled out.  First few Christmases I sent cards plus pics - but with no response.  We didn't have letterbox with BM or family so fc were their only link to the past.  

However, the fc had prepared a video for each DD of events, birthdays, Christmas, holidays etc.  DD's would only watch video when they were sad, so  I must admit I did find it a bit threatening as everything looked so happy and fun on the videos, with lots of people, presents, fun etc.  

I would have liked to keep contact with fc, but I guess they moved on to next placements, we did however keep in contact with our SW who was due to retire after our placement (18 yrs ago now)   Still send her a Christmas card, and odd photo, but have never told her the difficulties/stress etc over the years.  As far as the photos we look like a happy, successful, wonderfully adjusted family 


I wonder what contact TB is going to have with his fc, I know they were very close to him, heard fd especially was in bits when TB left.  TB had for over a year been with them since he was 3 months old, but was told they were not able to make contact with TB for a couple months to make sure of a secure attachment with daddy B.   

Left to us - we kept in contact by text for the first 10 weeks or so (would have been 8 but Christmas was then) then met up. Have met up at least once every half term since then - Sqk loves seeing his 'Nanny' and the two children she now has on LTFC. They were with her, placed for adoption which then broke down, and they came back in as she was changing her approval to LTFC - so she fought LA to get them back. Sqk lived with them from just before his first birthday (so 16 months before placement) so important to all the children as well. They only live about 1.5 miles from us and the eldest child is in Brownies at our church. Sqk had been with his FC since he was 5 weeks old but she had prepared well for movement to us - he has always been really happy to see her and his foster-sibs but also knows he is our son and comes away with us happily - from the first meeting onwards.

I've moved on so many children to adoption, to other foster carers, to family members or back home. Each move the new parent/carer promises to keep in touch. I've never had a bad set of introductions. But only one (birth parent) has maintained anything like regular contact.

I always send birthday and Christmas cards, as well as presents for the first couple of years. I've never, ever had these acknowledged.

Most of the children I move on have been with me well over 12 months and have become part of my family.

It really saddens me that letter box contact is set up, almost as standard, for birth parents who didn't provide anything like the care I did for their children, whilst nothing of the sort is included for foster carers.

(I meant to add, from the bits and pieces I pick up from the odd email or social worker comment, the child I still see fairly regularly is by FAR the most settled)