Clash over prioritising adoption

A recent government direction for local authorities to prioritise adoption has reignited the debate over whether there is – or should be – a hierarchy of permanency options for children in care.

A letter from children and families minister Michelle Donelan to directors of children’s services (DCS) states that adoption will be a priority for the new government and that it wishes to see a “renewed focus” on adoption by councils.

The move follows the publication of latest Department for Education figures showing that annual adoptions fell by a third between 2015 and 2019.

In the letter, Donelan states that a key factor in the fall is that there are more children waiting for adoption than there are approved adopters. However, she suggests that the shortage of adopters may be linked to adoption agencies applying the law inappropriately.

“We’ve heard from prospective adopters that some have been put off from going through the approval process by agencies because they are told they are not suitable – they are too old, single, have never had children,” she writes, adding that different ethnicity is also not grounds for a match taking place (see box).

Her comments were described as “perplexing” by Kevin Williams, chief executive of The Fostering Network. He says the view of adoption as the “gold standard of care” apes campaigns by previous governments to prioritise adoption.

“We have been around this loop so many times before,” he says. “While adoption may be the best route to stability for a small number of children, the majority in care do not need adopting and all forms of permanence should be properly supported and considered for each child.

“It is certainly not the case that children in care are ‘waiting for a permanent, loving home’. That description is offensive to foster families and stigmatising of children living with those families, not to mention children living with their wider family.”

Andy Elvin, chief executive of Tact Fostering and Adoption, also reacted angrily to the minister’s letter. “I had hoped that politicians had moved beyond this insulting language and unthinking devotion to adoption,” he says.

“Long-term stability is vital and it is achieved in different ways for different children. For some, it is returning to birth parents, going to live with a relative, long-term foster care or residential care, and for others, it is adoption. There is no hierarchy to these options – it depends on the child’s circumstance.”

The DfE data also shows that the proportion of children with an adoption plan who had been adopted during the year had fallen from 37 per cent in 2015 to 32 per cent in 2019, while the proportion remaining in care rose from 60 to 66 per cent over that period.

Donelan’s letter states that the number of children being put forward for adoption during assessment by social workers has also fallen for the past four years. The government has asked regional adoption boards to “consider” why this happened and report back soon.

Rachel Dickinson, president of the Association of Directors of Children’s Services, says: “Local authorities will continue to support adoption, where appropriate. Ultimately, the courts will not approve an adoption unless this is the right decision for the child.”

A Local Government Association spokesperson says councils “have long welcomed applications from people of all backgrounds who are interested in adoption, and will continue to support those who are able to provide a loving, stable home for a child in care”.

Carol Homden, chief executive of Coram, welcomes the government’s announcement, but says the charity is “concerned” by the drop in adoptions and people approved to adopt. “There are over 4,000 children awaiting adoption,” she adds. “Behind every statistic there is a real child who has suffered the distress of family separation and who desperately needs the security of a permanent, loving home.”

Donelan has asked DCSs to review their processes and to check that all frontline social workers understand the law. She has also instructed DfE officials to see if the assessment and approval process of adopters could be improved.

GOVERNMENT CAMPAIGN TARGETS THE BAME COMMUNITY, WHILE MINISTER CLAIMS ETHNICITY IS NOT A BARRIER TO ADOPTION

Donelan states that children from black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) backgrounds are “significantly less likely” to be adopted than others and questions whether this could be linked to agencies trying to make the “perfect ethnic match”, highlighting a recent court case as an example.

The Children and Families Act 2014 repealed the requirement for adoption agencies to consider a child’s racial, cultural and linguistic background when a placement is made.

Yet the DfE cites figures that show that of the 1,080 children approved for adoption and waiting more than 18 months for a match, 24 per cent are from BAME backgrounds.

Last October, the government pledged £650,000 to boost recruitment of prospective adopters for “hard to place children”, including those from the BAME community.

“This will include targeted digital work and work with black churches and mosques to increase the numbers from BAME communities coming forward to adopt,” the DfE stated.

David Squires of Adoption UK says the 2014 act “was essentially a promotion of transracial adoption as part of a broader push to reduce the time children waited”.

However, Adoption UK’s most recent Adoption Barometer survey found that just five per cent of adopters were from BAME backgrounds, illustrating the challenge the government faces to recruit more diverse adoptive parents.