Review triggers debate over the role of contact in adoption cases

A review into the role of social workers in adoptions has found that a lack of contact with birth families can result in serious identity issues for children, potentially storing up problems for the future.

On the back of the findings, the British Association of Social Workers, which commissioned the report, is calling for a rethink of adoption law to consider a more open approach to contact between children and birth families.

However, professor Brigid Featherstone, one of the lead authors of the review, says that instead of legislative change, her preference is for a change in culture among social workers so that they judge situations on a case-by-case basis.

Identity issues

The arguments for and against contact are strong on both sides. The enquiry heard from adopted adults who said they wrestled daily with questions around who they are, where they come from and who they belong to.

It heard of adopters putting their lives and that of non-adopted siblings on hold waiting for their adopted children to reach 18. Adoptive parents told of adopted children who prayed each night that their birth mother was okay.

People who were trans-racially placed identified particular challenges, even where the adoption was generally positive.

Not having people of the same race around them was identified as an issue.

The enquiry also concluded that the frequent loss of relationships with significant people, including siblings from birth and foster families, was a concern.

Having no direct contact was seen as having implications for siblings who remain at home with the birth parents or are born after the adoption.

However, there are concerns that direct contact with the birth family could have negative implications for a child's ability to form attachments with their adoptive family and stop them feeling a sense of "belonging" and permanence.

Letterbox contact

In England, Scotland and Wales, so-called "letterbox contact" is the usual approach for relaying news about a child to birth families, with direct contact rarely an option.

Letterbox contact involves an exchange of written information between the adoptive parent and birth family, which is handled through a central point - usually the adoption service acting as the letterbox exchange.

Addresses are kept confidential and inappropriate content potentially redacted.

However, the enquiry heard that letterbox contact is often poorly resourced. This can mean that if either adoptive families or birth families stop letterbox contact, unilaterally there is no follow up to ascertain why.

The review found that a lack, or cessation, of direct contact can "store up trouble'" especially for birth families and adopted children.

The system is seen as unsatisfactory by birth parents and adoptive parents, with problems also mentioned by some adopted young people.

Both adoptive parents and birth families described the distress caused to children and adults when letters ceased to arrive, often without any information being available about why this was so.

The enquiry suggests that better resourcing for earlier periodic contact may be important to improve the benefit of the letterbox approach and to improve long-term outcomes.

Direct contact

The enquiry heard that although direct contact is uncommon in England, Scotland, and Wales, the picture is very different in Northern Ireland where judges may recommend such contact takes place, sometimes between four to six times a year.

However, adoptive parents and social workers expressed concerns to the enquiry about the automatic assumption of direct contact at this level of frequency "given the context of inadequate support services".

But some form of rethink of contact arrangements between adoptees and birth families was considered essential by many.

They felt a need to move away from standardisation and formulas to individualised contact planning, pointing out children of different ages have different contact needs.

If there is to be a shift to more direct contact, it was noted that the level of post adoption support for all parties - families, adopted children and their adoptive parents - needs increasing.

The enquiry says it is vital that any expansion of direct contact is adequately resourced, but notes that this might pose tensions in the balance that needs to be struck between support for birth families pre-proceedings and post-adoption support.

Sector response

Brigid Featherstone says agencies should start from the assumption that direct contact with birth parents ought to be considered.

"Usually, adopted children go searching when they get to 18 and it can store up trouble if they haven't had previous contact, enabling them to see their birth parents for good or ill.

"They can stop having fantasies about these wonderful parents that they were stolen away from, or equally that they were absolutely terrible people. It's about their identities.

"Adopted people told us that identity is a lifelong issue for them."

However, Sue Armstrong-Brown, chief executive of Adoption UK, says there are many children for who contact could be harmful.

"Children in care, and those who are adopted, have often lost everything they're familiar with," she says.

"Staying in touch with siblings and other birth family members is often incredibly important to their emotional wellbeing.

"For some children, this is judged to be healthy and appropriate. But there are many children who have been so physically and emotionally harmed by their birth families that any further contact would be ill advised.

"These are difficult judgements to make, and are never made lightly because they have long-lasting impacts on children."

The online story about the review findings was viewed more than 5,000 times on CYP Now's website and also generated a number of comments.

Satwinder Sandhu said the review findings chimed with his own experience of adoption.

"It is really important to support children to maintain connections and form a well-rounded sense of identity," he said.

"Formulating contact plans that demonstrate true understanding of the impact not only on the core relationships (with birth parents, adopters, foster carers and siblings), but also the child's day-to-day life is critical in this being a success.

"Over two decades, I've seen plans being made without these issues being taken into consideration, which leads to children being deeply disrupted - in every sense of the word."

Expert view: ‘New approach to contact should have relationships at its heart'

By John Simmonds, director of policy, research and development, Coram BAAF

There have been a number of issues raised very recently about the adequacy of our current approach to contact - explicitly in adoption, but also in relation to foster care and children placed with extended family members.

These range from a view that children are being denied their right to have contact with family members and that direct contact should be the norm rather than the exception. Related issues are also raised for birth parents and families. There is also the impact of social media on contact - a factor too often ignored until it is too late.

I would start with a challenge as to whether the concept of contact should be abandoned and we should really be replacing it with the concept of social relationships. We are born into a social world and social relationships are the core of who we are and who we become.

They are the basis of family and community life - both at their best and at their worst. When family life breaks down, it will usually mean that relationships have become fractured and children are typically caught up in that.

It is one of the major stress factors for children, whether it be about separation and divorce or abuse and neglect. Rebuilding a family life for a child out of a family life that has broken is a major challenge involving multiple issues.

Adoption, fostering and kinship are all caught up in this rebuilding task, but rarely from a "clean break". The past continues to impact on the present in all kinds of ways - broken relationships endure, have meaning and are the object of considerable curiosity. They may also be a source of threat and create considerable stress.

Redefining contact as relationships might enable us to think about the significance of what may be going on in children's minds and the minds of adults.

If we are going to open up further exploration of the place of contact, let us start with what it means not just what the practical arrangements are. In other words, something that is child- and adult-centered.

Expert view: ‘If contact is properly planned, it can really improve children's outcomes'

By Maggie Mellon, chair of steering group for BASW review of role of social worker in adoption

One of the major motivations for the review was the division of opinion about the ethics of adoption and particularly about "forced", or non-consensual adoption.

We wanted to look at the removal of children, often at birth, due to likelihood of harm that is often potential future emotional harm and whether that is justifiable or not. Birth parents and many members of the public might think not.

Nobody would disagree there is a place for adoption, but adoption should only happen when nothing else will do. Even then, there is still the issue of the child's identity. It is in the child's interest to make sure they grow up with an idea of who they are and where they come from.

A lack of contact can not only harm the adopted child, but is also detrimental to siblings remaining in the birth family, who, by law, they are no longer related to.

Adoption law was made in the beginning of the 20th century, before the internet was created. It is now very simple for children to be found and for children who have been adopted to find their birth families.

In my experience as an independent social worker, many adoptive parents have the idea, and are almost encouraged to think, that an adoption can be closed and there will not be any contact with the birth family until the child is 18. I don't think that's a good preparation for adoption - they should be asked to think about what they would do if contact is made.

I would much rather see adoption as an act that families consent to. It should come out of a family conference when it is agreed that the birth family cannot provide a stable home for the child to grow up in. Everyone needs to have a good understanding of what the child's needs will be and what contact should take place. If contact is properly planned it can really improve children's outcomes. It is time for the legislation to be reviewed.