You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
There are rather few studies which look at the adult outcome of adoptions, and Raynor's is valuable for this reason. The book is the result of a study sponsored by the Thomas Coram Foundation for Children. This research attempted to locate all the adoptive families with which the Thomas Coram Foundation had placed a child born between 1948 and 1951 inclusive, and to interview parents and, separately, the adoptees themselves, aged between 22 and 27 at interview. Because the Coram Foundation placements all involved a period of fostering—sometimes for several years—before the adoption, one of the questions Raynor wished to explore was whether this had any effect on outcome. The study therefore included a second group of adoptive families, where the children, born over the same 1948-51 period, had been placed directly for adoption through the National Adoption Society, with no fostering period involved.
Not all the families could be located, or, once located, agreed to the interview. The study finally comprised interviews with 160 families and with 105 of the adoptees. In some cases the adoptees were unavailable for interview for other reasons—e.g. living abroad—but in 36 cases it was the adoptive parents who declined to let their adult son or daughter be interviewed. It appears that frequently their decision reflected fears of stirring up thoughts and feelings about the adoption which parents hoped and believed their child had forgotten about.
Thus already, before we even turn to the interviews themselves, we have an indication of one of the central concerns emerging from the book: the enormous unease generated in some of the parents by discussion of the adoption and the child's separate biological origins.
Raynor approaches the question “How have the adoptions turned out?” by looking at the overall view of the parents and the adoptees, as well as at the current “life-adjustment” of the adoptees. As she points out, the latter criterion is particularly handicapped by the a