Chapter 11: Summary of Recommendations
295. We recognise the unique nature of adoption
and its potential to enhance the lives of children by providing
a life-long, permanent route out of the care system. We agree
with the Government that there is scope to increase the number
of children benefitting from adoption. (para 24)
296. Adoption is only one solution for providing
children in care with the love, stability and support that they
need. Long-term fostering, kinship care and special guardianship
play a significant role in meeting the needs of many of the children
who cannot be cared for by their birth parents. These permanency
options merit equal attention and appropriate investment, both
by Government and by agencies working at the national and local
level. Improving the outcomes for all looked-after children should
be the objective. (para 34)
297. We strongly endorse the importance accorded
to the right of a child to be raised within his or her family
of birth whenever possible. This right is similarly enjoyed by
the birth parents. However, the right of the birth parents must
not be secured at the expense of the child's safety, health and
development. The welfare of the child is, and should remain, the
focus of concern. (para 40)
298. In light of the latest research about the
impact of abuse and neglect on a child's physical, emotional,
intellectual development and wellbeing, it is imperative to enable
all children for whom adoption is the plan to join their new families
as soon as possible. We note especially the very significant and
sometimes life-long impact which abuse and neglect has on the
very young. We recommend that Directors of Children's Services
should ensure that social workers in safeguarding and adoption
teams are kept aware of relevant research findings as part of
their continuing professional development. (para 46)
299. We commend the Government's aim to reduce
delay in placing children with their new adoptive families and
to minimise the risk of harm caused by moving children between
foster placements. (para 47)
300. We welcome the Government's plans to reduce
the time taken by care proceedings but we are deeply concerned
that achieving the Government's new time limit of 26 weeks will
depend heavily on the quality of assessments submitted by social
workers. Poor quality assessments may need to be repeated and
can lead to an over-reliance on outside experts, increasing delay
for the child. Unless the quality of social worker assessments
is urgently and comprehensively addressed there is little hope
of the new time limit being met. This has resource implications
both centrally and locally. (para 55)
301. The timeliness of decision-making about
whether or not to remove a child from home is crucial. This is
especially the case for the very young. Where there is no capacity
for parental change robust decision-making is needed to ensure
that other permanency options, including adoption, are pursued.
(para 59)
302. Decisions to delay entry into care need
to be accompanied by targeted intervention to address a family's
problems, with a timetable for review which takes into account
the child's need for stability. (para 60)
303. Where there is parental capacity to change,
the arguments in favour of early and intensive intervention to
address the parents' problems are compelling: enabling children
to live safely within their birth families reduces the number
of children in care and the numbers waiting for an alternative
permanent placement. We are concerned, therefore, that adoption
reform is being funded by taking money from the Early Intervention
Grant. We urge the Government not to undermine further the importance
of preventative programmes by focusing on adoption at the expense
of early intervention. (para 67)
304. A balance needs to be struck between giving
parents time to address their problems and respecting the child's
need for a secure and loving attachment. Robust assessment of
parental capacity to change, by social workers and their managers,
is essential to ensure that early intervention programmes are
appropriately targeted. It is imperative to ensure that a child's
need for secure attachment, especially when very young, is not
compromised by prolonged attempts to rehabilitate the family.
(para 71)
305. We reiterate the support we gave in our
previous report for early decision-making after children enter
care, and for permanency planning to be prioritised one month
after entry into care. To support this we reiterate the recommendation
in our earlier report to review the Statutory Guidance on Adoption.
(para 74)
306. We urge Directors of Children's Services
to ensure that adoption is integrated fully into child protection:
good communication between adoption and safeguarding teams is
essential to reduce the delay for those children who are not able
to return to their birth families. We support the revised Ofsted
reporting regime in its aim to promote more integrated working
between local authority teams providing services for all looked-after
children. (para 76)
307. Concurrent planning provides significant
benefits in terms of enabling early attachments, minimising disruption,
and reducing delay. We support its widest possible application.
(para 79)
308. We welcome the Government's proposal to
impose a new duty on local authorities to consider a fostering
for adoption placement when considering adoption for a child.
We are concerned, however, that there is a risk of challenge under
the European Convention on Human Rights, unless the local authority
has taken all reasonable steps to explore reunification of the
child with the birth family at the earliest opportunity, and the
parents have been able effectively to participate in the decision-making
process. We are concerned that this may inhibit the extent to
which local authorities will choose to place children in fostering
for adoption placements. (para 86)
309. We strongly urge the Government to issue
clear guidance to local authorities on how to satisfy their obligations
under the ECHR when applying the new duty on fostering for adoption.
(para 87)
310. We are persuaded of the benefits of friends
and family care as alternatives to local authority foster care,
where a suitable carer is available. To avoid delay such carers
should be identified as early as possible, ideally pre-proceedings.
(para 92)
311. We recommend that it should become normal
practice where possible for local authorities to convene a family
group conference, or similar arrangement, with family members
and friends, before a child becomes looked-after, or as soon as
possible after entry into care, to enable identification of alternative
carers before any decision about the child's future has been made.
It is essential that the child is involved either directly or
via an advocate in such conferences. (para 93)
312. We reiterate the recommendation in our earlier
report that it is vital for Directors of Children's Services to
address the current practice among some local authorities of delaying
family finding until a placement order has been granted. (para
98)
313. Social workers perform a vital role in protecting
the most vulnerable children in society; the status, training
and reward of social workers are therefore extremely important.
We invite the Government to give this further consideration. (para
104)
314. We support the findings of the Munro Review,
in particular, the focus on improving the knowledge and skills
of social workers and their supervision; and the proposal to retain
experienced social workers in front-line services after promotion.
(para 105)
315. We recommend that social workers' training
on adoption, alongside other forms of permanence, is strengthened.
We also recommend that permanence planning, including adoption,
becomes part of a post-qualifying specialism for social workers,
with a particular emphasis on the importance of timely decision-making.
(para 107)
316. Improving the training and supervision of
social workers will, of course, have cost implications. However,
we believe that this is an area of work of such importance to
society as a whole that under-resourcing it would be a false economy.
(para 108)
317. We are concerned that some Independent Reviewing
Officers (IROs) are charged with reviewing the care plans of too
many children, when statutory guidance suggests that they should
handle no more than 70 cases at any one time. We believe that
excessive workloads prevent IROs from carrying out their statutory
duties to promote the best interests of the child. We recommend
that the number of cases handled by IROs should be monitored more
robustly by IRO managers, and that action should be taken, where
appropriate, to reduce workloads. Local authorities are currently
under a duty to appoint IROs to review children's cases and should
appoint a sufficient number to enable IROs effectively to carry
out their statutory duties. (para 120)
318. We believe that IROs could discharge their
duties more effectively if they were employed outside the local
authority. It would be necessary for a sufficient number to be
appointed to deal with relevant case loads. We recommend that
the Government implement Section 11 of the Children and Young
Persons Act 2008 to achieve this. (para 124)
319. We believe that it is essential that IROs
undertake regular reviews of the circumstances of children subject
to placement order but not yet placed for adoption, as they are
required to by statutory guidance. Where appropriate, IROs need
to ensure that an application to the court for revocation of a
placement order is made. IRO managers and Directors of Children's
Services need to ensure that the guidance on children subject
to placement order but not yet placed for adoption is always followed.
(para 128)
320. We welcome the fact that CAFCASS is proving
successful in allocating guardians to all children; this is commendable
given the significant increases in care proceedings over recent
years. We are concerned, however, that the quality of this provision
can sometimes be variable. (para 135)
321. We recommend that CAFCASS continue to ensure
consistency of practice. The Government should ensure that CAFCASS
has sufficient resources to allow for guardians to be allocated
to all children subject to care and placement proceedings, and
for those guardians to have an appropriate amount of time available
to allow them to discharge their duties effectively. (para 136)
322. The fragmentation of adopter recruitment
and the small scale of some local authority operations can result
in prospective adopters being turned away by their local authority,
even though there are children waiting for adoption in other areas.
We consider that this position is unacceptable, given the shortage
of adopters. (para 149)
323. We recommend that a greater number of councils
should move towards joint working and integrated management of
adoption services, including recruitment, as has already been
achieved by some smaller local authorities. This will help to
address the systemic disincentives to greater adopter recruitment
and speedier matching. (para 150)
324. We recommend that the Government should
encourage and facilitate further joint working by:
· Developing a single Ofsted inspection
for a unified service, rather than separate inspections of each
local authority;
· Publishing joint scorecard assessments;
· Issuing guidance on employment law to
facilitate the merging of services. (para 151)
325. The Government is proposing to give the
Secretary of State the power to direct local authorities to outsource
adopter recruitment. This would constitute a significant reform
of adopter recruitment in England. We understand and share the
concerns of the Government about the fragmentation of adopter
recruitment, and the national shortage of adopters to which this
contributes. We therefore urge local authorities and partners
to work together to make progress on these issues, particularly
in light of concerns that outsourcing adopter recruitment risks
isolating adoption from other services for looked-after children.
We strongly encourage the Government to allow sufficient time
for the sector to develop viable and achievable alternative proposals,
before using the new power. (para 155)
326. We support the establishment of the National
Adoption Gateway as a first port of call for anyone considering
adoption. Delivered properly, the gateway offers the potential
to increase the number of adopters coming forward, which will
be vital if the Government is to meet its aim of increasing the
overall number of adoptions. (para 160)
327. We support the government's proposals for
speeding up the assessment and approvals process for adopters.
We believe that the opportunity for an applicant-initiated break
during the process will provide suitable time for reflection.
A faster process will allow children to be provided with new parents
more quickly; it may also help to retain some adopters who, at
present, drop out of the approval process. (para 166)
328. We support the Government's proposal for
a fast track procedure for previous adopters and approved foster
carers. Those who have been approved for adoption should not have
to repeat the same assessments when looking to adopt for a second
time. They should be subject to an abridged approval process which
focuses on their capacity to adopt an additional child and an
assessment of any significant changes in their circumstances.
(para 168)
329. We believe that local authorities should
explore as early as possible all potentially appropriate matches
for children in care, including those provided by voluntary agencies.
We recognise the important role that voluntary adoption agencies
play in finding families for harder-to-place children. (para 176)
330. The operation of the inter-agency fee presents
a barrier to greater involvement of voluntary agencies in providing
adoption services, and leads to unnecessary delay in placing children.
We welcome the discussions that are taking place on this matter,
and urge the Government, local authorities and the voluntary sector
to reach an agreement which removes the financial disincentives
currently present within the system. We encourage the Local Government
Association to facilitate discussion amongst its members on the
equalisation of fees. (para 177)
331. We support the proposal to move existing
requirements relating to referral of children and adopters to
the National Adoption Register from statutory guidance into regulations.
We would, however, stress the importance of avoiding delay. We
therefore recommend that adoption agencies are required to make
referrals as soon as possible: once an adoption decision has been
made for a child, or once an adopter has been approved; as long
as no local match is actively being considered. Three months should
be considered the very latest point at which to refer. (para 182)
332. We believe that the length of time many
children wait to be adopted in some local authority adoption services
is unacceptable. The Government must take quicker and firmer action
against repeated poor performance identified through monitoring
processes; where appropriate, using Section 14 of the Adoption
and Children Act 2002. (para 198)
333. We recommend that more thought should be
given to the design of these monitoring processes. The adoption
scorecards should be revised to provide a greater level of contextual
information, and to recognise fully the complexity of a local
authority's care population. Measures of speed and timeliness
should recognise the performance of the courts and legal processes,
as well as that of local authorities. (para 199)
334. The most important measure of performance
is the outcome. Insufficient data exist to measure properly the
success of adoption placements. More should be done to measure
rates of, and reasons for, adoption breakdown. We recommend that
the Government work with the Local Government Association and
Association of Directors of Children's Services to consider how
this could more effectively be monitored. (para 206)
335. Children adopted from care have a range
of needs due to their early life experiences which are not resolved
simply by being adopted. As a result adoptive parents face challenges
that many other families do not. Adoptive parents perform a vital
social function in caring for very vulnerable and often damaged
children, and thereby save the state money. (para 215)
336. The failure of adoptive placements can be
extremely expensive for local authorities in the short and long
term, as well as causing significant harm to the children concerned.
Well-targeted support services have the potential to ensure placement
stability and to avoid these costs. (para 216)
337. We believe that adoptive parents should
receive greater and more consistent and continuing support. Calculations
of cost need to take into account the contribution which support
services make to preventing adoption breakdown and the associated
costs. To support this, we recommend the Government commission
an independent cost-benefit analysis setting out the cost of breakdown
against the cost of providing support. (para 217)
338. In addition to enhancing placement security
the provision of post-adoption support has been shown to increase
the number of adopters coming forward. We believe that the availability
of such support would greatly assist with meeting the Government's
objective of increasing significantly the number of prospective
adopters. (para 219)
339. We welcome the new School Admissions Code
which gives adopted children, along with children in care, priority
access to school places from September 2013. In order to safeguard
further the wellbeing of adopted children we recommend that the
Government extends the current duty on schools under the Children
and Young Persons Act 2008, to appoint a designated teacher to
promote the educational achievement of looked-after children,
to include adopted children, with a specific remit to educate
teachers and children about adoption and its effects. (para 225)
340. We welcome the promised introduction of
professional learning material on issues faced by adopted children,
and we urge the Government to extend this to all staff working
in schools in order to raise awareness amongst teachers and children.
(para 227)
341. We welcome the Government's proposals for
post-adoption support, but we regret that they fall short of a
statutory duty to provide the support needs as assessed. There
should be a statutory duty on local authorities and other service
commissioning bodies to cooperate to ensure the provision of post-adoption
support; this should include appropriate access to health, education,
and Children and Adolescent Mental Health Services, and other
services as necessary. These entitlements should form part of
the Adoption Passport. (para 233)
342. Children in Special Guardianship and kinship
placements deserve the same support which we recommend for adopted
children. We therefore recommend that our proposed statutory duty
on local authorities and other service commissioning bodies to
cooperate to ensure the provision of post-adoption support should
be extended to include formerly looked-after children in other
permanent placements, such as special guardianship or kinship
care. (para 237)
343. Many parents who have had children removed
go on to have subsequent children, who then also become involved
with the care system. This adds to the burden placed upon social
services and the state. Providing support services to birth families
whose children have been removed should be seen as an essential
step in breaking the cycle which leads to more children being
born into families that are not able safely to parent them. (para
244)
344. We believe that resources invested in birth
family support in the short-term will produce savings for the
state in the longer term. We therefore recommend that the Government
should establish a pilot scheme to provide post-adoption support
to birth families across a number of local authority areas to
establish the benefits and costs of such provision. (para 245)
345. We believe the recently launched social
impact bond for enhanced family finding is an innovative approach
to finding homes for the most difficult to place children. It
correctly balances the additional cost of the scheme against the
cost of keeping children in local authority care until they are
18. We invite the Government to follow the progress of this social
impact bond with a view to establishing what lessons can be learnt
and applied more widely. (para 253)
346. Practice in relation to post-adoption contact
with birth family members varies considerably. We are concerned
that the purpose of such contact may not be fully understood when
arrangements are made. Post-adoption contact should be considered
only in relation to the needs and best interests of the child,
with no presumption for or against allowing contact. (para 260)
347. The maintenance of sibling contact, especially
where children have lived together, is extremely important to
some adopted children. Adoptive parents should be supported and
encouraged by the courts and adoption agencies to maintain contact
arrangements with siblings, when the child desires it, and provided
it is in the child's best interests. It would be highly regrettable
if the new provisions on contact in clause 8 of the Children and
Families Bill presented additional barriers to achieving sibling
contact. (para 269)
348. We believe that the exclusion of descendants
of adopted persons from the definition of relatives in section
98 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 creates an unfair anomaly
in the legislation. This can be a cause of significant distress.
We recommend that the Government amend section 98 of the Act to
bring within its scope the direct descendants of adopted persons.
The Adoption Information and Intermediary Services (Pre-Commencement
Adoptions) Regulations 2005 should be amended accordingly. (para
274)
349. We are concerned about the predicament facing
birth relatives who are unable to access an intermediary service
because of the high level of fees. We urge local authorities who
do not provide an intermediary service to birth relatives to consider
providing the service as part of their post-adoption support services
or through the commissioning of a voluntary sector provider. (para
277)
350. We are concerned that differences in the
Statutory Guidance between England and Wales create an inequality
in access to information about an adoption. We invite the Government
to draw this matter to the attention of the Welsh Government,
with a view to ensuring that adoption agencies in Wales have the
same discretion as those in England to disclose identifying information
to adopted persons in appropriate cases. (para 279)
351. We recognise the importance of ensuring
the best possible start for an adopted child within their new
adoptive family. We urge the Home Office to consider the following
changes to immigration procedure and practice with regard to children
adopted from overseas:
· Applications for visas or British passports
for adopted children should be prioritised by the UK Border Agency;
· Specialised training should be introduced
for UK Border Agency staff with responsibility for processing
visa and passport applications for adopted children;
· Clear timescales for the processing of
applications should be established and communicated to applicants;
· Appeals should be dealt with promptly.
We urge the Home Office to implement a process whereby
the merits of a potential visa application can be assessed prior
to the prospective adopters travelling overseas for the child
to be placed with them. (para 285)
352. We are concerned by evidence of a legal
loophole created by the designated list procedure which is being
exploited by some prospective adopters seeking to evade proper
assessment as to their suitability to adopt. We recommend that
the Government review the designated list procedure. (para 287)
353. It is important that the legal position
of children placed for adoption from overseas is properly regulated
and that someone has legal authority to make decisions regarding
important matters such as the child's education and health pending
the making of the final adoption order. The Government must ensure
that children are not left without a designated person or local
authority who can exercise parental responsibility where appropriate.
(para 290)
354. We reiterate the intense vulnerability of
children adopted from overseas, many of whom will face serious
challenges beyond even those faced by children adopted domestically.
We call on the Government to reconsider the changes made to the
new School Admissions Code to give priority in the admissions
process to children who were looked- after in their state of origin
immediately prior to the adoption. (para 292)
355. We agree that the preparation of a home
study report on prospective overseas adopters should be seen as
a service for children and part of the local authority's safeguarding
responsibilities. We therefore urge local authorities to give
careful consideration to the removal of charges for the preparation
of home study reports. (para 294)
| 
