I TOO was saddened by the experiences undergone by Meg Henderson and her family ("I was deceived by adoption agencies - and now my daughter is dead", The Herald, October 5). Having read the two letters you published today (October 9), I would like to write of my experience.
My wife and I adopted two children in the 1970s. We had to collect my daughter at eight days old from the maternity hospital where she was born.
We had to pick up my son from a foster parent when he was around four months old as it was felt that he may have had a medical issue. This proved to be unfounded.
I have nothing but praise for the social workers involved, and the time they took with us explaining the process and legalities involved.
Our motivation was examined (my wife was unable to conceive, and were aware of that before we married). Our backgrounds were checked thoroughly; our home was visited to ensure that it was suitable for children, and our interests, common and separate were looked at.
At all times, the suitability of us as adoptive parents was assessed, as was the linking up with the children who were eventually placed with us.
Yes, at times the process seemed lengthy and cumbersome, but it had to be. The whole process took around three years from first making application to being given a child.
I have to say that for us, the whole process has proved to be extremely satisfactory. We were encouraged to tell the children from an early age that they were adopted, and we did so. There is no time in their lives that they thought or knew otherwise.
Our family was complete, and the children were brought up in a loving relationship. We continue to have a good relationship with them, and are now blessed with four granddaughters, whom we love dearly, and who love us in return.
I am aware that not all adoptions turn out so well, but ours did, and for that I am eternally grateful.
Gordon W Smith,
Baronscourt Gardens, Paisley.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here