Durham E-Theses What makes adoptive family life work? Adoptive parents’ narratives of the making and remaking of adoptive kinship Jones, Christine A. How to cite: Jones, Christine A. (2009) What makes adoptive family life work? Adoptive parents’ narratives of the making and remaking of adoptive kinship, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/2052/ Use policy Thefull-textmaybeusedand/orreproduced,andgiventothirdpartiesinanyformatormedium,withoutpriorpermissionor charge,forpersonalresearchorstudy,educational,ornot-for-pro(cid:28)tpurposesprovidedthat: • afullbibliographicreferenceismadetotheoriginalsource • alinkismadetothemetadatarecordinDurhamE-Theses • thefull-textisnotchangedinanyway Thefull-textmustnotbesoldinanyformatormediumwithouttheformalpermissionofthecopyrightholders. PleaseconsultthefullDurhamE-Thesespolicyforfurtherdetails. AcademicSupportO(cid:30)ce,DurhamUniversity,UniversityO(cid:30)ce,OldElvet,DurhamDH13HP e-mail: [email protected]: +4401913346107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk 2 WHAT MAKES ADOPTIVE FAMILY LIFE WORK? ADOPTIVE PARENTS' NARRATIVES OF THE MAKING AND REMAKING OF ADOPTIVE KINSHIP Christine A. Jones PhD This Thesis is submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, School of Applied Social Sciences, Durham University May 2009 None of the material contained in the thesis has previously been submitted for a degree in the University of Durham or any other university. None of the material contained in the thesis is based on joint research. The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. Any quotation or information derived from it should be acknowledged. ABSTRACT Adoption theory, policy and practice have undergone considerable change in the period between the introduction of the Adoption Act (1976) and the Adoption and Children Act (2002). In this period, in particular, adoption has increasingly come to be understood within the context of an ethic of 'openness'. This has had implications for the day to day lives of members of the adoption triad, that is, adoptive parents, adoptees and birth family members, and their attempts to 'make adoption work' across their lifecourse. The thesis draws on theories of family and kinship in order to develop understandings of day to day family practices that emerge in adoptive families and the way these shape and are shaped by adoption discourse. The thesis provides an analysis of local and national statistical data and the biographical accounts of twenty two adoptive parents who had children placed with them between 1977 and 2001. These were all domestic 'stranger' adoptions. From the adopters' narratives it was apparent that the core and ongoing challenge facing adoptive parents was to find a unique way of 'doing' adoptive family life which acknowledged the importance both of biological ties and legal kinship. This was the case regardless of the year of the adoption and continues to challenge these families today. The thesis explores the tasks which flow from this core challenge, that is, developing and maintaining family relationships between adopters and adoptees where none previously existed, finding a place for birth relatives within the adoptive kinship model and developing a positive identity as a non conventional family. The thesis challenges the conceptualisation of adoptive relations as 'Active kinship' and biological connectedness as 'real' kinship and presents evidence of the fragility of both the biological family and the adoptive family where there has been a legal adoption of a child. At the same time the thesis reveals the ability of both biological and adoptive family ties to endure over time despite cultural barriers. The study also reveals that existing typologies of adoption as 'confidential', 'mediated' and 'fully disclosed' fail to capture the complexity of adoptive family life. A new definition of both adoptive kinship and 'openness' in adoption are developed and the implications of these redefinitions for adoption policy and practice are explored. DEDICATION AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This thesis is dedicated to my dear friend Rachel Sherratt who died tragically in January 2008 while taking photographs of the snow in rural Perthshire. Rachel acted as a referee when my husband and I applied to adopt and was a great support in those busy, tiring, early days of family life. She will always be 'Aunty Rachel'. I would like to acknowledge the fantastic support and advice that I have received from my academic supervisors Simon Hackett and Helen Chamley. They somehow got the balance just right between supporting and challenging me. Simon's comments were always insightful and helped me to think much more deeply about key aspects of the thesis. Helen's talent for thinking laterally has added a richness to the thesis that would not have otherwise been there. I would also like to thank DFW Adoption, the partner organisation in the ESRC CASE studentship that funded this PhD, for their support. All of the workers at DFW Adoption were warm and welcoming and generous with their time and advice. In particular, I would like to thank Margaret Bell, Practice Manager at DFW Adoption who also supervised the PhD. Margaret's extensive experience of adoption practice and her more recent experience of the implementation of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 has been invaluable. I must thank the twenty two adoptive parents who graciously gave up their time to tell me about their experiences of adoptive family life. All were very welcoming and many offered me hospitality over and above that expected of interviewees such as offering me lifts to and from the train station, tea and biscuits, lunch or inviting me to stay for dinner. I also owe thanks to my dear friend Margaret Petrie who has come on this journey with me and is due to submit her thesis later this year. Lastly, and most importantly I would like to thank my family for all of the practical and emotional support that they have given me and the intellectual stimulation that they have provided. Thanks go to my mum and dad for the hospitality they offered when I was doing my fieldwork, to my husband Derek who has dutiftiUy read through and discussed draft after draft of the thesis, and to my children who have provided daily reminders about what 'doing family' means. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 SETTING T HE SCENE 1.1 INTRODUCTION 1 12 WHY STUDY ADOPTION? THE PERSONAL AND THE POLITICAL 3 1.2.1 THE CHANGING NATURE OF ADOPTION 3 1.2 2 INTRODUCNON OF THE ADOPTION AND CHILDREN ACT 2002 5 1.2.3 THE ROLE OF THE STATE IN THE LIVES OF VULNERABLE FAMILIES 6 1.2.4 THE INTERESTS SERVED BY CHANGING ADOPTION DISCOURSES 8 1.2.5 CONSEQUENCES OF THE CHANGING NATURE OF ADOPTION FOR ADOPTIVE FAMILY 9 LIFE 1.2.6 MY PERSONAL INTEREST IN ADOPTION 10 1-} A NOTE ON TERMINOLOGY 11 1.4 SUMMARY AND STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS 11 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE 13 2.1 KEY THEORETICAL DEVELOPMENTS IN THE FIELD OF ADOPTION 13 2.1.1 OPENNESS 13 2.1.2 PERMANENCE 17 2.1.3 PSYCHOSOCIAL WELLBEING, RISK AND RESILIENCE 19 2.2 THEORIES OF 'FAMILY' AND 'KINSHIP' 22 23 REINTERPRETING THE 'WHAT WORKS' AGENDA 27 2.3.1 THE GROWTH OF THE ' WHAT WORKS' AGENDA 28 2.3 2 CRITIQUES OF EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE 29 2.3.3 BRINGING TOGETHER THE QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE TRADITIONS 31 2.3.4 A WAY FORWARD FOR EVIDENCE-BASED ADOPTION POLICY AND PRACTICE 32 2.4 REVIEW OF EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE RELATING TO 'WHAT MAKES ADOPTIVE FAMILY LIFE WORK' 34 2.4.1 THE SCOPE OF THE REVIEW OF EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE 34 2.42 DOES ADOPTION WORK? 35 2.4.3 RISK AND PROTECTIVE FACTORS ASSOCL\TED WITH ADOPTION OUTCOMES 36 2.4.4 THE CONTRIBUTION OF INFORMAL SUPPORTS TO MAKING ADOPTION WORK 42 2.4.5 DESIRABLE SKILLS, ATTITUDES AND QUALITIES OF AN ADOPTIVE PARENT 43 2.4.6 THE CONTRIBUTION OF AGENCY PRACTICES TO MAKING ADOPTION WORK 44 2.4.7 THE CONTRIBUTION OF OPENNESS TO MAKING ADOPTION WORK 47 2.4.8 SUMMARY OF EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE AND CONCLUSIONS 58 2.4.9 DISCUSSION OF GAPS IN THE EVIDENCE BASE 59 2.5 SUMMARY 64 2.6 FOCUS OF THE RESEARCH 65 2.6.1 AIMS OFTHE STUDY AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS 66 1 METHODOLOGY £7 3.1 DESIGN OF THE EMPIRICAL RESEARCH 67 3.1.1 ANALYSIS OF LOCAL AND NATIONAL STATISTICAL DATA 68 3.1.2 INTERVIEWS WITH ADOPTIVE PARENTS 69 32 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS 83 33 VALIDITY, TRUSTWORTHINESS AND GENERALISABILITY OF RESEARCH 84 3.4 THE REFLEXIVE RESEARCHER 87 3.5 CONCLUSIONS 90 4 FlNTlINCS AND pisniSSTON: THF CHANGING PROFIT F, OF ADOPTE^^S AND ADOPTEFS AND THE FAMTT IFS CREATF.n THROUGH ADOPTION 22 4,1 RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS OF DFW ADOPTION RECORDS AND NATIONAL 93 STATISTICAL DATA 93 4.1.1 CHARACTERISTICS OF ADOPTED CHILDREN 99 4.1.2 CHARACTERISTICS OF ADOPTIVE PARENTS 4.1.3 ISSUES ARISING FROM THE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS 107 42 THE ADOPTERS' STORIES 109 43 SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS OF THESE STORIES 120 5 FINDING.^ AND DISriLSSION: THF THALLENGES OF ADOPTION AND 122 WAYS THESE MANAGED. 5.1 INTRODUCTION 122 52 THE MAKING AND REMAKING OF ADOPTIVE KINSHIP: THE HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL CONTEXT 125 53 GAINING AND MAINTAINING KINSHIP BETWEEN ADOPTERS AND ADOPTEES: A LIFELONG TASK 131 5.3.1 ENTRY INTO PARENTHOOD-A RITE OF PASSAGE 131 5.32 THE ROLE OF AGENCY AND ITS LIMITS 133 5.3.3 INTIMACY THROUGH THE DAY TO DAY RHYTHMS AND RITUALS OF DOING FAMILY 136 5.3.4 INTIMACY AS SHARED FAMILY HISTORY 138 5.3.5 FAMILY AS ONGOING COMMITMENT AND LONG TERM INVESTMENT 139 5.3.6 MAINTAINING KINSHIP IN THE FACE OFTHREATS, DISRUPTIONS OR AMBIGUITIES 141 149 5.3.7 SUMMARY 5.4 FINDING A PLACE FOR BIRTH RELATIVES WITHIN THE ADOPTIVE KINSHIP 149 NETWORK 5.4.1 RNDING A PLACE WITHIN THE KINSHIP MODEL FOR BIRTH FAMILY MEMBERS IN 152 CONRDENTIAL ADOPTIONS 5.4.2 FINDING A PLACE WITHIN THE ADOPTIVE KINSHIP MODEL FOR BIRTH FAMILY 156 MEMBERS WITH WHOM THERE IS DIRECT CONTACT 161 5.4.3 FINDING A PLACE FOR THE BIRTH FAMILY IN THE ADOPTIVE KINSHIP MODEL IN 165 MEDIATED ADOPTIONS 5.4.4 SUMMARY 5.5 DEVELOPING A POSITIVE IDENTITY AS A NON CONVENTIONAL FAMILY 166 5.5.1 THE ONGOING IDENTITY WORK IN WHICH ADOPTIVE PARENTS ENGAGE: A PERSONAL JOURNEY 167 5.5.2 THE IDENTITY WORK OF THE ADOPTIVE FAMILY: IN THE PRIVATE DOMAIN 169 5.5J THE IDENTITY WORK OF THE ADOPTIVE FAMILY: IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN 170 5.5.4 ADOPTIVE FAMILY LIFE - THE SAME AND DIFFERENT 177 5-5.5 SUMMARY 179 5.6 THE ROLE OF 'ADOPTION TALK' IN THE CRAFTING OF KINSHIP 180 5.6.1 THE CHALLENGES OF'ADOPTION TALK'WITHIN THE AEXJPTIVE FAMILY 181 5.62 HOW ADOPTIVE FAMILIES MAKE STORYTELLING MANAGEABLE 186 192 5.63 SUMMARY 193 5.7 CHAPTER SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 6 IMPLICATIONS FOB THEORY POT ICY AND PRACTICE 121 6.1 CONCEPTUALISING ADOPTIVE KINSHU* 62 RECONCEPTUALISING 'OPENNESS' IN ADOPTION 200 6.2.1 OPENNESS AS A STRUCTURE 203 6.22 OPENNESS AS A PROCESS 204 6.2.3 OPENNESS AS AN OUTCOME 205 6.2.4 EMIC UNDERSTANDINGS OF OPENNESS 207 6.2.5 A NEW DEFINITION OF OPENNESS 209 6.2.6 OPENNESS AS DUAL CONNECTION OR A TRIAD OF CONNECTEDNESS 209 63 IMPLICATIONS OF THE RECONCEPTUALISATION OF ADOPTIVE KINSHIP AND OPENNESS FOR POLICY AND PRACTICE 211 6.3.1 IMPLICATIONS FOR ADOPTION POLICY 211 6.3.2 IMPLICATIONS FOR ADOPTION PRACTICE 212 6.4 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 218 2 SinVfMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 221 7.1 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 221 7.2 SUMMARY OF NEW KNOWLEDGE GENERATED 227 73 STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF RESEARCH 229 7.4 PERSONAL REFLECTIONS ON THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPING THE THESIS 231 7.5 POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE RESEARCH 231 8 APPENDICES 234 8.1 APPENDIX A - TABLE SUMMARISING OUTCOME STUDIES 235 82 APPENDIX B - LETTER OF INVITATION TO PARTICIPATE IN THE STUDY 238 8 J APPENDIX C - STUDY INFORMATION LEAFLET 240 8.4 APPENDIX D - INFORMATION AND CONSENT FORMS FOR INTERVIEWEES 242 8.5 APPENDIX E- INTERVIEW TOPIC GUIDE AND STIMULATION CARDS 246 9 REFERENCES 247 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1: A COMPARISON OF TRADITIONAL AND CONTEMPORARY APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF FAMILY AND KINSHIP 24 TABLE 2 DFW ADOPTION: MARITAL STATUS OF ADOPTIVE PARENTS 99 TABLE 3 DFW ADOPTION: AGE OF ADOPTIVE MOTHER AT RRST PLACEMENT 1976 - 2001 • 101 TABLE 4 DFW ADOPTION: AGE OF ADOPTIVE FATHER AT HRST PLACEMENT 1976 - 2001 * lOi TABLE 5 DFW ADOPTION: MINIMUM, MAXIMUM AND MEAN AGES OF ADOPTIVE PARENTS AT POINT OF APPROVAL AS ADOPTERS FOR 1998/9 (IVALDI 2000)) 104 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1 WHAT MAKES ADOPTIVE FAMILY LIFE WORK 2 FIGURE 2 DFW ADOPTION: PROPORTIONS OF BOYS AND GIRLS PLACED FOR ADOPTION BY DFW ADOPriON BETWEEN 1976 AND 2001 94 FIGURE 3 DFW ADOPTION: PLACEMENTS PER YEAR BY DFW ADOPTION OF CHILDREN AGED <2 AS A PERCENTAGE OF ALL PLACEMENTS* 95 FIGURE 4 NATIONAL RGURES: ETHNICITY OF CHILDREN PLACED FOR ADOPTION IN THE LATE 1990s ....96 FIGURE 5 DFW ADOPTION: NUMBERS OF CHILDREN PLACED SINGLY OR AS PART OF A SIBLING GROUP BY DFW ADOPTION BETWEEN 1976 AND 2001 98 FIGURE 6 NATIONAL HGURES: PROPORTIONS OF ADOPTERS IN ENGLAND WHO WERE SINGLE APPLICANTS IN THE LATE 1990S 100 FIGURE 7 DFW ADOPTION: AGE GROUP OF ADOPTIVE MOTHER AT TIME OF RRST PLACEMENT BY ERA OF ADOPTION* 102 RGURE 8 DFW ADOPTION: AGE GROUP OF ADOPTIVE FATHER AT TIME OF HRST PLACEMENT BY ERA OF ADOPTION 103 FIGURE 9 NATIONAL HGURES: ETHNICFTY OF ADOPTIVE PARENTS NATIONALLY IN THE LATE 1990s ... 105 FIGURE 10 DOING ADOPTIVE FAMILY LIFE WITHIN A CLIMATE OF INCREASING OPENNESS 124 FIGURE 11 TRADTTIONAL 'AS IF' MODEL OF ADOPTIVE FAMILY LIFE 128 FIGURE 12 THE'YOKED FAMILIES' MODEL OF ADOPTIVE KINSHIP 128 FIGURE 13 A MODEL OF INCLUSIVE ADOPTIVE KINSHIP 128 FIGURE 14 PROMOTING THE INCLUSION OF BIRTH FAMILY AND DUAL CONNECTION IN THE MODEL OF ADOPTIVE KINSHIP 152 FIGURE 15 THE VIRTUOUS CYCLE OF CONTACT AND RELATIONSHIP 207 FIGURE 16 THE AMBIGUTTIES OF ADOPTIVE KINSHIP 210