Industry body calls for return of key element of CAFA 2014

S1(5) of the Children and Families Act (CAFA) must be reinstated, according to Nalagro, who recently submitted evidence to the House of Lords (HL) Select Committee on the Children and Families Act 2014 to this end.

The 2014 Act removed  the requirement, in s1(5) Adoption and Children Act 2002, for those placing a child for adoption to “give due consideration to the child’s religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural and linguistic background”.

Nalagro, the Professional Association for Children’s Guardians, Family Court Advisers, and Independent Social Workers, argues that this change should be reversed.

The body states that the adopters best placed to meet all of the needs of black children are those with a similar religious persuasion, racial origin, and cultural and linguistic background.

Race, religion, culture, and language are essential components of a child’s identity, and the removal of s1(5) of CAFA treats these key elements of the child’s future sense of self as of no weight in the matching process, say Nalagro. In their evidence to the HL, they said:

“The impact of the deletion of s1(5) of the Adoption and Children Act is that Black children are more likely to be placed with families who do not reflect their heritage and who are not able to meet their cultural, religious and linguistic needs,” said Nalagro of the now-defunct provision. They continued:

“They are likely to grow up not being able to connect with their own communities nor sure that they will be fully accepted into the communities in which they have been placed. This sacrifice was considered to be in the children’s interests, as long as it reduced waiting times.

Their visibility as adopted children becomes more obvious, and their sense of self and their identity and development as black children is significantly impaired. It is also likely to diminish their ability to deal with racism. In such circumstances, Nagalro considers this could be emotionally abusive and damaging to these children.”

Nalagro’s primary concern is to address the reasons why disproportionate numbers of black children find themselves in care and, secondly, why there are insufficient black adopters.

They are also concerned that there has been no follow-up research to review this change in the legislation and to find out whether the amendment has achieved the results which were argued for when the 2014 Act was enacted.

Join nearly 1,000 other family lawyers – sign up to our newsletter