If you are at all interested in Adoption and LinkedIn, you will already be aware of Claire Agius, a PhD student from Manchester Metropolitan University, who has recently submitted her PhD and kindly created a post on her emotionally-aware research with adoptive parents for the final blog on our adoption series.
Adoption is one route to permanence for children who cannot remain with their birth families. Many have lived through neglect, abuse, or significant early adversity. Adoptive parents step forward to provide stability and care, but they cannot heal trauma alone. When systems delay, misdirect, or fragment support, families are left carrying unbearable burdens, and the stability adoption promises is put at risk.
My doctoral study explores the impact of raising a child with trauma on adoptive parents’ mental health and examines how systemic structures help or hinder families. Conducted between 2022 and 2025, the research combined in-depth interviews with adoptive parents and post-adoption professionals with a participatory, film-based process that enabled parents to revisit and re-interpret their own stories. Parents co-edited emotional “touchpoints” from their filmed interviews, first for emotional processing, and later for collaborative meaning-making. This innovative two-stage process revealed not only what families said in the moment, but how they later understood their struggles, providing rare insight into why problems persist across time.
Methods and Approach
The study engaged adoptive parents and post-adoption professionals across England. A distinctive feature was the use of filmed narrative interviews, later revisited with parents through an adapted Experience-Based Co-Design (EBCD) process. Parents co-edited their most painful or telling moments, “emotional touchpoints”, which became the basis for deeper reflection and co-analysis. Importantly, emotions often shifted between the first and second viewing: what was raw distress initially was later reinterpreted with new perspective. This temporal dimension offered a richer understanding of how families live with and make sense of ongoing struggles.
Key Findings: Five Causal Mechanisms
The research identified five systemic mechanisms that help explain why adoptive families encounter the same challenges again and again:
Crisis-Led Logic → Invisible Early Struggle
Services are triggered by visible breakdown, not early distress. Parents described desperate pleas for help that went unanswered until crisis loomed. Professionals echoed this dynamic, explaining that thresholds and funding criteria meant they were often forced into reactive rather than preventative roles.
Unsupported Care Work → Relational Burnout
Parents’ own emotional needs are rarely recognised. The relentless labour of advocating, soothing, and managing daily crises falls heavily on them, with little formal or informal support. Professionals noted that while therapeutic resources might be offered for the child, parental wellbeing was considered a lesser priority in post-adoption support planning.
Mistrust and Marginalisation → Silenced Insight
When parents seek help, they are too often met with suspicion or blame. Instead of being recognised as experts on their children, they are treated as the problem. Several professionals reflected on how mistrust erodes open communication, acknowledging that risk-focused cultures can silence parents’ perspectives.
Systemic Fragmentation → Constant Bureaucratic Burden
Families must navigate siloed services, repeated assessments, and defensive institutions. Parents spoke of becoming “experts by necessity” in order to access what their children required. Professionals described a fragmented landscape that left them struggling to coordinate support or act decisively across organisational boundaries.
Service-Defined Progress → Residual Struggle
Support is often withdrawn once narrow service criteria are met, even if families continue to struggle behind closed doors. Services may focus on keeping placements intact while overlooking the wider toll. Professionals described similar frustrations, noting that time-limited interventions often forced them to close cases prematurely, even when they suspected families would continue to need help.
Impacts and Implications
Together, these mechanisms explain why adoptive families experience persistent strain. Parents’ mental health suffers, siblings carry secondary trauma, and placements teeter on the edge of breakdown. For government, the cost is twofold: the human suffering borne by families, and the financial burden of avoidable crises across social care, education, and health.
The findings carry important implications at multiple levels:
- For families: parents’ mental health declines under unsupported care work, and siblings experience secondary trauma that remains invisible to services.
- For systems: a crisis-led, fragmented model means resources are mobilised late, at greater human and financial cost. The Adoption Support Fund, while valuable, is shaped by bureaucratic gatekeeping. Parents described decisions made by staff without sufficient trauma knowledge, leading to inappropriate or stop–start provision. Trauma-informed practice must extend from top to bottom of the system, including commissioners and fund-holders as well as frontline practitioners.
- For knowledge and practice: by marginalising adoptive parents’ perspectives, services lose access to vital expertise. This study shows that film-based, participatory methods can surface and revisit lived experience in ways that expose persistent problems and open space for collaborative solutions.
Recommendations
Based on these findings, five preliminary priorities for reform are proposed:
- Invest in early relational support – Commission services that intervene proactively, building resilience within the first year post-placement.
- Support the whole family – Embed provision that includes parents’ mental health and siblings’ wellbeing alongside the child.
- Reduce bureaucratic gatekeeping – Simplify and standardise access to the Adoption Support Fund so families can receive timely help.
- Embed trauma-informed practice system-wide – Extend trauma awareness beyond frontline therapists to commissioners, fund-holders, and policymakers.
- Value lived expertise through co-design – Involve adoptive parents directly in shaping provision, policy, and evaluation frameworks.
Conclusion
Adoptive families are willing partners in the work of healing trauma. But they cannot do it alone. By using filmed interviews and a co-interpretive process, this study demonstrates both the human and systemic costs of current approaches, and the potential of participatory, trauma-informed methods to generate change. Adoption will remain a sustainable route to permanence only if support is early, relational, and family-centred, and if adoptive parents’ lived expertise is recognised as central to system redesign.
Claire’s ’emotional touchpoints’ will no doubt resonate with many families, and what we really like about her work is the relevance to practice. The recommendations may seem common sense, but they highlight the very real challenges experienced by adoptive families. Do connect with Claire if you are interested in learning more.
HOLES IN THE WALL 