The Department for Education (DfE) have provided an update to Today’s Family Lawyer on the implementation of its Adoption Strategy and criticism of the adoption system.
In July 2021 the Department for Education announced an Adoption Strategy in order “to deliver excellence in adoption services across England” by working with adoption agencies to “ensure that best practice becomes the norm”.
The policy was in response to DfE statistics which showed over 80,000 children were in care in 2020 but, only 3,440 were adopted that year. This was down from 5,360 in 2015.
This will help to ensure that every adopted child and their family can access the services and support they need wherever they live, and maximise children’s outcomes in the short and long term.
Lucy Theobold, Director at The Family Law Company, commented in 2021 on the Adoption Strategy and questioned “whether we have been down this road before” with the2015 the Adoption Support Fund. She also stated:
“Many people who might well be ideal adopters are so concerned that they will not fit the requirements that they do not even make an initial enquiry. There is also a distinct lack of post- adoption support and assistance both geographically and in terms of capacity to deliver. This gives the general perception that becoming an adoptive parent is just too difficult.
15 months for a child to be placed is still not acceptable with this timeframe even longer for children with special education needs and disabilities, siblings, those from ethnic minority groups and older children.”
Over 10,000 people in the UK waiting to adopt, and this number is increasing. However, potential adoptive parents still face significant barriers in the adoption system resulting in vulnerable children being delayed, or denied a new home.
The Department for Education has provided a response directly to Today’s Family Lawyer over these issues.
The Department for Education published its national Adoption Strategy in July 2021. Has it been properly implemented, and how effective do you think it has been?
Since the launch of the government’s National Adoption Strategy published last summer, adoption figures are on the rise with latest figures showing increases in the number of families approved to adopt. Latest figures also show that the number of adoptions increased to 2,940 in 2021-22, up from 2,870 last year (see https://coram-i.org.uk/resources/asglb/).
What do you think about Nalagro, the Professional Association for Children’s Guardians, Family Court Advisers, and Independent Social Workers, calls to reinstate S1 (5) of the Children and Families Act to take into account the child’s religious persuasion, racial origin, and cultural and linguistic background?
Ethnicity is still an important consideration when children are being matched with adopters, balanced with the child’s other identified needs. We are recruiting more ethnic minority adopters – we saw an increase of 30% last year – and giving better support to adopters who want to adopt children of a different ethnicity.
Evaluation reports have also reflected on how post-adoption support, facilitated by the Adoption Support Fund, is helping families. Parents and carers said the therapies they most frequently accessed were focused on helping them form attachments as a family (“Dyadic Developmental Psychotherapy”), therapeutic “life story” work aimed at supporting open, honest conversations about a child’s history, play therapy for the child, sensory processing therapy for children who have difficulties with change or transitions, or training for parents such as non-violent resistance or in building and nurturing attachments.
What do you believe about the disparity in waiting times certain children receive, for instance, 25% of children over the age of five have longer wait times and children from ethnic minority backgrounds can wait up to three months longer than other children?
In March we announced that over £160 million over 3 years would be invested, removing remaining barriers and reducing delays for thousands more children still waiting in care, so they can be matched more quickly with the right family.
Black and minority ethnic children are now being placed for adoption on average eight months earlier than in 2013-14.
From a policy perspective, what changes are the Department for Education looking at in order to turn our adoption system around?
The Independent Care Review has provided important information to help address major challenges in the system. We are working to reform the system, improving the lives of England’s most vulnerable children so they realise the benefits of a stable, loving home. Read our response to the recommendations here: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/fundamental-shift-in-childrens-social-care-set-out
There have been several cases of forced adoption in the UK, of which victims have still received no formal apology. Do you have any comments on this?
The government expects to respond later this year to the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights which covered historical adoption issues (Adoption of Children of Unmarried Women 1949–1976).
A Department for Education spokesperson provided further commentary as they added:
“The importance of a loving, stable family cannot be overstated, no matter what shape it takes.
Through the National Adoption Strategy we are working closely with Regional Adoption Agencies to transform how local adoption practices work and are delivered. The Adoption Support Fund has already helped 40,000 families and we are providing a further £144 million investment over the next three years to continue funding essential therapies for the families who most benefit from it, to help improve behaviour and mental health.”
Natalie Robinson, lecturer in law at Nottingham Law School, also provided commentary on these adoption matters, as she stated:
“As a solicitor who has practised in the area of family and child protection, in house within a local authority, I can appreciate the arguments put forward by Nalagro in relation to the calls to reinstate s1(5) of the Children and Families Act. S1(5) provided the requirement for those placing a child for adoption to “give due consideration to the child’s religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural and linguistic background”. As a practitioner this almost feels as though, with apparent lack of valid evidence of any significant benefit arising from the removal of that requirement, this may be the incorrect solution for the disparity in placement availability and suitability in terms of cultural/ religious matches. Without this requirement, this allows local authorities for example to match adopters with children without first having considered the child’s religion or racial origin. This may result in good statistical data and improvements in adoption processes on face value, however this then may have a very real, life long impact on that child who is permanently placed within a family that they cannot see themselves reflected in. This may lead to that child feeling isolated and they may find it difficult to establish their own sense of identity; therefore this surely does not promote the welfare of the child, which should be of paramount consideration. It may be argued that such families adopting children from outside their own culture/ background could be trained and supported in terms of educating themselves, in order to better accommodate that child. I am mindful however, that such support may vary in depth and quality across England and Wales and so it may be somewhat of a ‘lottery’ for that child as to what upbringing they experience.
Placing children with families that reflect their own culture/ beliefs allows the children being placed for adoption (an archaic and permanent decision made around that child’s life which is not something to be reversed), the opportunity to stay in touch with their culture and remain familiar with their own identity, in the absence of remaining in touch with their birth family for example.
Equally, on the other hand we have to appreciate the lack of ‘suitable/ appropriate’ placements for the children in question. Availability of placements has inevitably been impacted since the pandemic. It could also be argued that it may become dangerous to go too far with only placing children with families that reflect their backgrounds and cultures; this may cause even more disparity in waiting times for certain children, or ultimately result in some children remaining in long term foster care.”
