In the United States unwed mothers don't relinquish babies because of stigma or religious beliefs, they do it because there is this belief if they can't get a better life for themselves or their babies anywhere in the short term the best they can do for their child is give them the advantages of economic security. No amount of 'love' will help them or their child (children) if they are homeless or living in poverty with crime. We have virtually no safety net here. That said, the option of persuading a birth mother to choose you as their child's adoptive parents is so rare it's silly. THERE'S NOT TONS OF HEALTHY BABIES IN THE US TO ADOPT! Almost all adoptive parents I know have Chinese girls. End of story.

l.e. goodwin, denver, colorado

I'm an adoptive mum. First, we don't all want a baby. We adopted a 7 y/o "hard to place" boy, who is now a great teen with a Scouts Gold Award to his name. When he came we were 43. We started the adoption process at 40, both smoked & I was overweight. The approval process was harsh but it has to be, you will need those skills to advocate for a damaged child. We were not ideal parents but we were "good enough" and I really do think most "good enough" parents get through the process. I think the US system is medieval by comparison. We no longer take babies from unmarried mothers and it's scandalous that we did. The damage has been incalculable. Adoption is a last resort for parents and child. All children adopted in the UK now have been harmed in some way by their birthparents. It is right the child should stay with BPs and they should be given every chance in the world to bring that child up. That is the one thing I wish I could give to my child.

Bizzy, BRistol, UK

After visiting a council run adoption evening, where we were put off adopting as we did not meet the politically correct criteria we approached a local Catholic adoption agency, who matched us with our little boy. The fact that we were white, educated, married and living in a big house was not an obstacle to them. Thank God!

MP, West midlands,

Simple,a lot of people don't trust Politicians.

Alan Walton, Leicester, England

The big difference is that in the US the governement isn't allowed to tax its citizens endlessly in order to cover for the inconsiderate lifestyle choices of others. In other words, they don't have a system where a girl gets prgnant in late teens and is automatically granted a fully furnished house and income for the next 20 years or so (longer if more children arrive) out of my wallet.

KR, Stockport,

I think you'll find the Milibands (who I'm sure are thoroughly inclusive people) are insistent on their child having Jewish heritage. I'm sure this narrows options considerably!

George Rabbitt, Croydon, UK

Just read this excellent article & it's got me really excited! My husband & I have recently received a diagnosis of infertility at the grand old age of 30 but would love the opportunity to parent a child from day 1 onwards (not unlike the majority of the population). Would any readers know whether USA adoption is open for those without US dual/nationality?
Many thanks in advance, Jennifer
PS- Wanted to email the author but couldn't work out how- any suggestions?

Jennifer, Belfast, UK

This is not a strictly comment; it is more a question, although comment may fairly be read into it.

Your first commenter said; "... by a social worker who sounded that she could not be bothered, that we would not be put forward since we had two dogs."

We have almost become inured to para-political and other idiosyncratic actions by those to whom we have, for whatever reason, entrusted our social services. Usually, to our disgrace, we merely mutter disapprobation and pass on. But please, in God's name! may we be told how this particular decision, that was made in our name, is justified or can be explained?

Gordon Semple, Garstang, UK

myself and my husband went to an evening workshop in national adoption week. We then decided to put ourselves through the process, after two home visits in which we were made to feel we were on trial, every word and opinion written down and studied. The 2nd home visit was 3 weeks later with no reason given as to why they came again, only to be informed another 4 weeks later by a 5 minute phone call, by a social worker who sounded that she could not be bothered, that we would not be put forward since we had two dogs. Both are spaniels, one is 4 years old the other is 2 years old. We were told we could try if our circumstances change. That only meant one thing, get rid of the dogs and you might have a chance of going forward in the long drawn out process, that may result in an adoption. I thought they wanted people to adopt, my experience has shown me that, that is far from the case.

Sharon, Newcastle,

If, instead of having aborftions, girls were encouraged to give birth and have their babies adopted, there would not be a shortage of newborns for adoption.

It would also solve the problem of the shortage of young people: hence we wouldn't need immigration.

dave shields, london, UK

Thank you Alice for making this very valid point. In the UK, the idea is that children are left with drug/drink addicted parents for as long as possible - just long enough for the poor children to become emotionally and sometimes physically damaged. And then the state thinks we should take on these children that they have served so badly. I notice the 'there are plenty of older children' line - that's exacly my point. They are older and have often been very damaged, and sometimes it's just too late to help them in any meaningful way. Here the 'we know best' dictates the nightmare system of adoption, where we are subjected to greater levels of scrutiny than other similar nations, and are expected to mop up the state's mistakes in return. Seems to me this serves nobody very well. The system in the US isn't perfect either, but nobody there can believe the way children and adoptive parents are treated here.

Claire, Edinburgh,

if it was as hard to become a social worker as it is to adopt, there wouldn't be a problem. however, when the system is run by idiots, it's hardly surprising the system is idiotic.

social workers are somewhere below parking attendants in my book. while they fail to spot suitable parents reasonably and quickly, apparently as concerned with social engineering as with the remote likelihood of abuse, they condemn children to a harmful limbo.

the fact is that anyone can become a parent and the state rarely interferes. for the adoption rules, in contrast, to be so unrealistically framed and applied actually harms the very children they are designed to protect.

jem, london, uk

Hi,
You’re a strange lady you write from your failings , as I
Kind Regards Dr. Terence Hale Zandvoort

Terence Hale, Zanvoort, Holland

Thousands of British babies are denied the best adoptive parents because of the twisted PC minds of those setting the rules. Shame on them.

Ron, Bedford, U.K.

I am surprised to learn that American citizens living outside the U.S. are permitted to adopt and then take those children to a foreign country. There aren't enough babies available for adoption here - so many couples have to wait years and years. I don't think they'd be pleased to find out that couples like the British Foreign Secretary and his wife were allowed to adopt.

Tracy , USA,

Eleanor in London has it about right: there just aren't crowds of new babies in care waiting to be adopted in the UK. Some years the numbers are in single figures.
No-one would argue the system in the UK is perfect, but beware assuming adoption is the magic bullet. I would challenge the implicit notion that it's the wicked, incompetent social workers who are obstructing potential adopters in the UK. Most of these children are hugely damaged before coming into care and present immense challenges to anyone brave enough to parent them. It just isn't like parenting a "normal" child.

Nick, Bath, UK

The state doesn't need to be a bad parent; in Germany children from care achieve more than the average. But then their public services are well funded and run, unlike in greedy selfish England.

sam, leeds,

After fostering 5 years, i have given up. Not becuase of the difficulty of the child although it was extremely difficult but becuase of the foster care system. For 4 years a child was in our care - happy and extremely well adjusted then his social worker was dismissed only to find out that no one knew this child was with us. He apparently was a blip in the system???? Papers were not handed in, files missplaced, From that point on social workers hounded our family weekly trying to recover lost time. For a year complete havoc to the point we had to finally say we couldnt take it anymore. We are Americans living in England trying to help!! It was a nightmare. I can only imagine what else is going on in the system if this was our situation. These helpless children in the system have enough to deal with without a very confused system. A UK social service friend moved to Canada social services which he stands amazed at the ease in comparison to the UK system.

Julie, Manchester,

The Coram Foundation runs this scheme: a pregnant mother whose baby would go into care at birth can instead send him/her to a foster family at birth. If, in a year's time, during which appropriate contact is maintained (depending on the mother's state of health/mind/consciousness), she is still not capable of caring for the child, the foster family adopt. It sounds potentially awful for the fosterers who may have to give up a much-loved baby, but to my knowledge nobody has - most of the birth mothers remain too troubled/addicted and those who do get off the drugs/streets/criminal life conclude that their baby is better where s/he is and they need the space and time to concentrate on improving their lives and those of any older children. I think this is a good idea.

Clare, Nottingham,

Alice Miles is comparing two completely different scenarios. The US also has children in its care system who are removed from abusive and/or neglectful parents and need adopting - and they also have birth mothers voluntarily relinquishing their babies, which is not the case here. Comparing the UK children in care with US relinquished babies is like comparing chalk and cheese. People go to the US because that's where the new born babies are - if you have enough money and the ability to charm the birth mother, who is often relinquishing her baby because of stigma or religious beliefs (similar to here in the 50s) and not because she is likely to be a neglectful or abusive parent. Surely people here should rejoice that we don't encourage birth mothers to give up their babies - has Alice Mills any idea of the life-long distress adoption can cause to adoptees and birth mothers? I adopted in the UK (two white toddlers - yes it can be done) and would never consider adopting a US baby.

Jackie, Kingston, Surrey

Thank you for highlighting the failings in the care system and baby adoption in particular although this is only a small part of the care system as a whole. We have been involved in the Care System & its possible reforms for over 20 years and listened to a succession of Ministers for Children and read endless surveys and reports, all highlighting the same problems but never providing solutions that are actually acted on. The best way to reform the whole system would be to passport money with the children in care so that they can move seamlessly around the system and country, without being hampered by the endless bureaucracy and delays of various Health, Education and Social Service budgets. There should be a truly independent complaints procedure; a revision of case recording and access to files; immediate & proper assessment of children and their needs when coming into care; a Duty of Candour on Local Authorities; any reforms must be put into practice, enforced and monitored.

Sue, Norwich , Norfolk UK

This is such a fraught and stark question, with no simple answers, but surely notice should be taken in the UK of research in recent years showing the long term effects on a baby's brain development of poor emotional support. The cycle of deprivation then is likely to be repeated with that baby lacking the emotional resources in the future to parent in their turn.
On the micro level of people hoping to adopt, I wonder to what extent their difficulties are increased by the local authority they live in. About 7 years ago we made tentative enquiries about adopting, having 2 of our own already. Perhaps we were viewed very favourably as we were prepared to adopt up to about 5 years old,and would consider siblings. I was very nervous when I told the lady that our children were in private education, but she nodded approvingly and said that small class sizes would be helpful. This was in Kent.
Sarah, Kent

Sarah, Maidstone,

Myself and my husband attended pre-adoption workshops and said we were prepared to adopt a child of one year old or more, who had any number of difficulties. We were not unrealistic enough to demand a brand new baby. After a number of preparation days, we were paid a visit by a social worker who lost interest when we said realistically we could probably only cope with one child at first. We would have been expected to buy a bigger house, while at the same time I would have to give up work - not sure how they thought that could work. We were then informed that there was little likelihood of the adoption agency finding us a child on account of us being white. I then approached a local council whose website specifically asked for adopters of Irish heritage. I phoned and spoke to a social worker who couldn't have been less interested if she tried. She even told me to phone back in two weeks if no-one had called. So much for them being desperate for adopters. We've now abandoned those plans

Sue, London,

One of the biggest differences is that in the US private adoption system they say "the best thing you can do is give your baby up" (whether or not this is in any way influenced by the large amounts of money adoptions lawyers can charge for thier sevices in addition to the medical costs mentioned elsewhere is a moot point). In the UK Local Authorities and the Courts will take extreme measures to ensure that a child is not seperated from its family and say "the best thing for you to do is keep your child". Both are supposedly in the best interests of the child - but both can't be. It should also be bourne in mind that adoption is the chosen solution for a minority of children in UK care.

It is a myth that intercountry adoptive parents just want "a fresh brand new baby " - most just want to be parents, but do not match the needs of the children available for adoption in the UK in the current system (ethnicity and lack of appropriate parental experience being the biggest issues).

Stevan Whitehead, LONDON, UK

Alice Miles makes it sound like a right to adopt and seems to assume that babies in the care system should be available for adoption -their own families very often want their baby back, which is why they are not up for grabs. There are plenty of older children available for adoption.

Julie, Monmouth, UK

Your ideas must be worrying to your colleague Carol Sarler who thundered on Monday. Making the adoption process easier might bring in agencies and adoptive parents whose ideas don’t quite fit the ‘consensus’ – that peak which towers above the plateau which constitutes the ‘moral high ground’.

RoyC, Newent, UK

The only problem with Alice Miles' analysis of the UK system is that she does not go far enough. The UK system not only lets babies down, it crushes the hopes of those older children who make up the bulk of kids up for adoption. We, like the Milibands, are in the lucky position of having dual nationality. Unlike them we wanted to adopt a sibling group, aged up to 10. Our central London local authority refused even to assess us, saying we were too old (I was 35 at the time), too rich (!), too well educated (!!!) and had overcome our disadvantageous beginnings too well to have any empathy for a child coming out of foster care (what?!?). We took our adoption plans to the US, and are now the parents of a wonderful son and daughter. The UK system is a scandal, and I can only be grateful for my husband's accident of birth for letting our family escape its consequences.

Katharine, London, UK

I'm an adoptee who was in care for just six weeks and I've had to battle with the psychological damage from it all of my life. Pretending to be the daughter of people who are simultaneously pretending to be your parents, while somewhere else someone else is pretending that you died is an extremely tricky script to live out indeed. Given this level of disconnection, it's unsurprising that many adoptees find it difficult or impossible to socialise. If we really want to tackle their contribution to a broken society we can only do so by ensuring, as Alice says, a permanent bond with an adult at birth. The system in the US makes a Dickensian mockery out of that in the UK. But then who the hell cares about children in Britain anymore anyway?

Alicia, London,

Q: Why is it that a British foreign secretary and his wife, a professional violinist, are unable to adopt a young baby in the UK?

A: It is all about economy. £1 is over $2.

So, why not do the shopping there, buy one get one free!!!

Mack, London, UK

The difference is in the states more mothers choose to give their babies up. They may choose to continue with a pregnancy that in the UK would result in abortion because we have fewer hang-ups regarding abortion. So a direct comparison is not relevant- hardly any mothers are in a position to meet and choose a family and have them attend the birth because 99 per cent do not wish to lose the child. Most children removed at birth are taken due to drugs, previous ill treatment of children, mental health concerns etc.
I agree those children taken into care should be found a family as quickly as possible but unfortunately there is still a lack of families willing to adopt even young children who may have been seriously damaged by maternal drug or alcohol consumption. Many parents want a fresh brand new baby with no drug/health problems and few of those babies are available in the UK.. So although the sentiment of the article is good, the comparison is invalid.

Eleanor, London,