René Hoksbergen on adoption and foster care
By: Ranada van Kralingen and Yvonne Fiege
Emeritus professor and adoption expert René Hoksbergen has been approached by her biological parents to assist them in a case of youth care Groningen about the possible return of a seven-year-old girl. In his view, the child can return to her parents, who have since been fully rehabilitated, but youth care Groningen, which in the case is mainly guided by the view of Tonny Weterings (1), opposes this. In this interview, Hoksbergen explains how an outdated view of foster care and adoption care, especially in relation to the often underestimated aspect of the identity of the growing child, can hinder the well-being of the child in the long term.
Problems with adopted children
René Hoksbergen: The core of the matter is that both Femmie Juffer and Tonny Weterings are personally involved in their statements. (2) Juffer is an adoptive mother who obtained her doctorate with me. After that she went to Leiden and unfortunately it all went wrong. She worked together with professor van IJzendoorn, who has now been expelled from the university. As an adoptive mother, she has tried to demonstrate when adopting a foreign child how good that is for the child compared to children who remain in a comparative situation in the country of origin. Now the sad thing about her research and that is what I also blamed Frank Verhulst (3) thirty years ago, that she does not emphasize that if those children come here, all kinds of special problems arise and that we have to help adoptees with that. It does, however, provide information about this in certain analyses, for example, that they need help much more often - there is no other way because that just comes from that and a lot of other research - but how you should deal with those problems and what kind of problems they are, she says. nothing left. She does not come up with a specification of the problems and how to tackle them.
Attachment and identity
The second point of critical attention is that Juffer in particular has done an impressive amount of research into 'attachment' of an adopted child to parents. This has certainly been the core of her work, and she also obtained her doctorate for it. A study that I initiated and then we talk about the eighties and early nineties. But she has stopped at that. As adopted children grow up, they can be attached to their adoptive parents to a certain extent. And let's just hope this is always a positive bond because they are here and only have their adoptive parents, so fine if that relationship is good. In my practice I have often also ensured that that relationship could improve if it was not so good. But when those children grow up, something else comes into play and that is identity, the key question in life, 'Who am I?' And those two aspects, attachment and identity are different, but also cohesive, because as the identity element increases, the attachment can decrease. Because then the children realize, when they get older and come to the age of fourteen, eighteen or sometimes thirty, that they are different after all and that they do not really belong in the adoptive family. And that they have other parents, with whom they may not have a relationship at all, but those biological parents who are important. They have, as it were, an open space in their lives, in their thinking, in their feelings. And that is underemphasized.
Nobody wants to go through life as a foster child
In the case of Groningen, for example, you can see that it concerns a child of seven years old. I have argued that it can be returned to her biological parents. Those biological parents have simply been approved by the Child Protection Board, because they have another child and they handle it very well. They've been out of drug problems for years, they just recovered. Well you can, people can recover. I have seen them both and talked to them intensively as far as I know that is also reliable. Then such a child should simply go back to the parents, because a child does not want to go through life as a foster child. That's very simple. A child also does not want to go through life as an adopted child, if that is not necessary, because that is just the same. There are very big differences between foster children and adopted children who come from abroad, but there isn't that much difference in terms of identity issues. Every child wants to know his or her origin.
A foster child can bond well with its foster parents, but at the same time it has biological parents and the system was always such that if a foster child could go back to the biological parents, it went back. Look, the child we are talking about here is indeed attached to the biological parents, because it knows those biological parents very well. It has been done with them dozens of times, in total perhaps a hundred days, so if the biological parents agree, even after testing by official bodies such as the Child Protection Agency, then that child should simply go back. Then you can take half a year or a year, but that's how it should go. And if that is not the case, it is harmful to the child, but also harmful to the daughter who does grow up with those biological parents. Very harmful even. Then there is a chance that when the child is about ten or twelve years old, when the hormones start to work, she will protest and ask herself: 'Why am I still here? I also know my biological parents and they are lovely people, I want to go back to that. I don't want to be here anymore.' And then you get a battle of loyalty in the child itself and possibly major problems in the foster family to the point of running away.
Possible consequences of foster placement
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-svU0eyv7Hos/WaAC83MLAOI/AAAAAAAAPuc/RJeaXejoupcCkrrh6__MmksTtiLyPLvawCLcBGAs/s320/stres-a-depresja-1572704.jpgThen you will be the first to have the chance that it will fully associate itself with the foster parents and will no longer have anything to do with those biological parents, so also not with that daughter. That chance, that extreme chance exists. But that's not good either, because that daughter is there and she wants to hang out with her sister. There is also a chance that she will completely reject the foster parents and that she will protest and run away. That she runs away and does not go back to her biological parents, because she is angry and that she ends up in the prostitution or drug scene at the age of fourteen or sixteen. She may also go to her biological parents and say, "I want to stay here." And then you get into a fight with Child Protection and Youth Care. This situation already seems to arise, the child repeatedly says that she wants to stay with her parents, so it's wrong to let it go on like this. The chance that the child will protest is huge. I also see that in those adoptive families, that the adopted children start protesting, sometimes because they have to go to church. This is wrong and very harmful to the child. I find it very strange that a Youth Care Bureau will threaten… threaten, as in this case, 'if you appeal…' That does not suit an institution. All of this is harmful to the child. And what's also serious is that they've all made assumptions with that word 'rest', but that's cheating. Continuation of this situation, which is undesirable for the child, creates a lot of unrest in the child and later aggression. The child just wants to hang out with her parents and sister. How is it possible that the child is not allowed to associate with her own parents if they are normal parents? That's just not possible.
Who are the foster parents?
I don't deal with this very often, but I have been asked by these people to help. I don't say 'yes' to everything, but I thought this was such a special case and thought 'what is going on here?' Then I jumped in on that and I'm stunned. For example: the opinion of the child. I never read the opinion of the child, while it is true that a child should be heard. The child has not been heard, so basic injustice is being committed here on all sides and it seems as if people have formed an opinion on the basis of a letter that Mrs. Weterings sent to Groningen. She is childless herself and a foster care adept (proponent of 'foster placement with perspective') so she will be more likely to protect foster parents. In addition, I have not read anything of a judgment about this foster family. Of course I hear negative things from the biological parents, but I want objective data. I don't read it, because it is said that the child is attached to the foster parents, but what is the child actually attached to? What kind of foster parents are they? I'd like to know, just hard, objective research.
Collaboration with authorities
I have to deal with various Youth Care Offices. What strikes me about Bureau Jeugdzorg Groningen is that people really stick to a system of keeping the child with the foster parents and that they don't look critically at important changes. There are essential changes in this case and you have to take that into account. I have dealings with Bureau Jeugdzorg in Gouda-West, Altrecht in Zeist and Bureau Jeugdzorg in Oldenzaal, both of which are going well. I have had very close contact with them and still do, because they have asked me for help. I am often approached by authorities when they have the feeling that they cannot resolve it themselves, such as Altrecht in Zeist, for example. I work closely with these authorities and I am therefore surprised about this Groningen case. Threats from an institution, I don't come across that. That's just not possible! You cannot threaten in this assistance, that is not possible. In an individual case you can indeed say 'if…then..', but this is about a Higher Appeal. If you are looking for your right as parents, to threaten as an institution, that is a reason for dismissal. That's how I see it.
The struggle between attachment and identity
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-hP2_K1Jiu5E/WaAN_S52j2I/AAAAAAAAPvc/p2dvkM7YK7QUEf5cLujWQVS9fouQ7FkwwCLcBGAs/s320/94e820_e7a085b9f8724900893425f268509efb%257Emv2.jpgAt the heart of this matter in Groningen is the battle between the importance of attachment and the importance of identity. Mrs. Weterings is about the same age as I am, but she has not kept up with the developments in this regard and Juffer certainly not. Juffer is completely stuck in that extensive Leiden research on 'attachment', because that is central to Van IJzendoorn.(4) Juffer has not made much progress, so that is tragic. In the letter to Groningen, Weterings has put things that make me think 'how in God's name can you say that, that's outdated, that's over.' I've always understood that it worked like this in the system, that if a child can go back to the biological parents under the guidance and control of the Child Protection or Youth Care (or both), then that child goes back to the biological parents. In principle it should be, unless something is not right. I once prevented adoptive parents from returning the child to the biological parents and with force. Somewhere in Zeeland, a girl of about twelve was once in a foster family since her birth, where things were going well. (5) The biological mother wanted to take her into prostitution and then the good life of the child is immediately over. She should know what that mother does with her own life, but you cannot expose a child to that. If at all possible you should put a child back, but it should not be at the expense of the child and the education and the future possibilities. I once prevented adoptive parents from returning the child to the biological parents and with force. Somewhere in Zeeland, a girl of about twelve was once in a foster family since her birth, where things were going well. (5) The biological mother wanted to take her into prostitution and then the good life of the child is immediately over. She should know what that mother does with her own life, but you cannot expose a child to that. If at all possible you should put a child back, but it should not be at the expense of the child and the education and the future possibilities. I once prevented adoptive parents from returning the child to the biological parents and with force. Somewhere in Zeeland, a girl of about twelve was once in a foster family since her birth, where things were going well. (5) The biological mother wanted to take her into prostitution and then the good life of the child is immediately over. She should know what that mother does with her own life, but you cannot expose a child to that. If at all possible you should place a child back, but it should not be at the expense of the child and the education and the future possibilities. (5) The biological mother wanted to take her into prostitution and then the good life of the child is immediately over. She should know what that mother does with her own life, but you cannot expose a child to that. If at all possible you should put a child back, but it should not be at the expense of the child and the education and the future possibilities. (5) The biological mother wanted to take her into prostitution and then the good life of the child is immediately over. She should know what that mother does with her own life, but you cannot expose a child to that. If at all possible you should put a child back, but it should not be at the expense of the child and the education and the future possibilities.
Feeling of power leads to limited vision
We are all but people and employees of Bureau Jeugdzorg are not incompetent, but their tendency to listen to criticism can be too limited. The feeling of power can lead to a limited vision. You see this more often. Trump has been lifted over the horse, the deity himself and that's how he behaves. At Bureau Jeugdzorg you see this also occur with some. There is too little criticism from senior management. They do have discussions among themselves, because that is part of the system. In other cases they sometimes say 'if we had had contact with you earlier, we would have acted differently'. Sometimes my advice is acted upon. Dark horse and SOS youth care are on the 'negative line', focused on things that go wrong. I have that to some extent, because I almost only see the problem cases in adult adoptees. Name a problem and I've had it here; murder, suicide, incest (mother-son often, but also brother-sister, own child, adopted child), you name it. But itis not all misery. There are very happy adoptive families who are doing well. And also with adoptees who have processed the problems of being adopted and given up.
Foster parents in this case
The foster parents in this case do not seem to take the same position. The biological father Michiel said: 'I can talk to that foster father well, but that foster mother is a different story'. The girl in question is the first foster child in a situation where foster parents couldn't have children, but now that mother already has two or three of her own, so that has become a completely different situation. I predict that this foster child will come second in this family and that may already be happening. You can never be a hundred percent sure, but I am afraid that it will happen.
There is now a fight going on over a child, an outright fight. I think that foster father would be open to reinstatement. It has more distance and is much more realistic. I have the feeling that the foster parents are letting it get to them a bit, because it is mainly the Youth Care Agency, the lawyer and (a letter from) Mrs. Weterings who are fighting against the biological parents.
Gradual transfer
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-7ilv_kgsUNY/WaAHsrNQw_I/AAAAAAAAPu8/rqnzIYowipoeuZ1Z-inF18jw0gbokA3dACLcBGAs/s1600/je-hoeft-niet-te-kiezen.jpgI cannot make general statements about the frequency of contact with their child in a foster situation. It happens that children go to the biological parents every weekend, but you have to look at that on a case-by-case basis. There are also foster children who do not want to return home at all. In this Groningen case, I was impressed by what the biological father Michael said: 'When the child comes back to us, it should happen gradually, but we are also happy if we regularly have our daughter at home, but not once in a while. the six weeks. Just more often, once every two weeks for my part.' He doesn't even claim that child one hundred percent, while I say 'this child has to go home'. That speaks for him and also for his wife. They really think about their daughter's best interests.
They had to give up this child because of their drug use five, six years ago. Fortunately, no alcohol during pregnancy because that is much worse. But that has been over for years. They have recovered. They both have jobs and do their best in society. An ordinary family, house tree, animal. They are not saints, but I had the impression that they are listening to what independent people suggest.
Questioning your own performance
This case surprises me, I find it disgraceful. I can see it this way, the misery for this child later when it is ten, twelve years. I have advised the parents to go to the Higher Appeal and if I am called up I will put things even more clearly on paper. Youth Care Groningen has said: 'If you, as biological parents, go to a higher appeal, we will change the visitation arrangement for the negative'. So no more visitation arrangements or once a year. Of course you can't! That is unimaginable, that is simply not possible. I am not used to this from a Youth Care Agency. This has nothing to do with childcare. Apparently there is too little mutual criticism within Bureau Jeugdzorg Groningen. It is in fact good if youth care workers submit their doubts or hesitations to a third party, an independent expert, to test their own opinion. That they can admit that they "shouldn't have done something like this." Just the way you should work. You're not a saint if you're in control of some case. You must dare to question your work and your position. That's how it should be. In clinical practice this is called intervision.
Center for adoption and foster care
The aftercare at adoption is completely inadequate. There is also no aftercare for adult adoptees. Many of those people have specific questions and problems for which they cannot turn to everyone. You have to be an adoption expert specifically for that. I argued for a central institution for adoption and foster care.(6) This would then provide guidance and assistance to foster and adoptive parents and to foster and adopted children. Of course, the biological parents also play a role in the background if the children can keep in touch with them, they will come in naturally. You are talking about three groups of adults and two groups of children. That makes money. It provides money for reduced assistance and the quality of life of people.
© Youth care Dark horse and SOS youth care
(1)AM (Tonny) Weterings remained a pedagogue at Leiden University after her retirement as a senior researcher in the field of youth and foster care. She reports to courts and she is also a teacher at SSR, Study Center for the Judiciary, where she gives courses to juvenile judges and court secretaries.
(2)Femmie Juffer is an adoptive mother. She conducted longitudinal research on adopted children, but did not repeatedly see the respondents herself, unlike Hoksbergen, who criticized her for this. Tonny Weterings is childless and in favor of long-term residence of children with their foster parents.
(3) Frank Verhulst, Emeritus professor and department head of the Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry at Erasmus MC.
(4)A review written by Femmie Juffer about the commentary by Rien van IJzendoorn on the occasion of the report 'Reflection on Intercountry Adoption' - November 2, 2016, of the Council for Criminal Justice and Youth Protection (RSJ) mainly discusses the aspect of attachment and does not address the problems with identity in adoptees at a later age disregarded. The RSJ's argument that it is better to invest in youth protection in the country of origin also receives no attention, apart from the discussion of the current children's homes and the level of attachment among the children there. http://www.opvoeding-wetenschappen.nl/2017/03/02/interlandelijke-adoptie-en-gehechtheid/
(5) https://www.bol.com/nl/p/kinderen-die-niet-konden-blijven/1001004010981302/
(6) René Hoksbergen argues for mandatory aftercare when adopting children