A statistical analysis of recent adoption trends, and the pursuit of a financial agenda

The government has today published the latest round of adoption statistics for England and Wales.  These focus on Quarter 3 of 2012-2013.  The patterns emerging are identified in the Department for Education’s Quarterly Adoption Survey.

The report examines data collected through a voluntary survey, covering the characteristics of children who were at any stage in the adoption process, and the timelines of their journey.    

Some of the key themes identified include:

Ø                  there was a statistically significant decrease (about 18%) in the number of adoption orders between Quarter 4 of 2011-12 and Quarter 3 of 2012-13.

Ø                  comparing the same periods, there were increases in adoption matches and placements (up 13% and 15%, respectively).

Ø                  the adoption process for older children, disabled children, children from black or minority ethnic (BME) groups and sibling groups takes longer than the national average.

It takes an extra thirteen months for children aged five or older at placement. 

It takes an additional two months if the child is disabled, if the child is considered for adoption as part of a sibling group or for BME children.

Ø                  in the third quarter of 2012-13 more BME children were placed with adoptive parents compared to the last quarter of 2011-12 (increasing by over 30%).

Ø                  the time from a child entering care to placement with adoptive parents saw a 7% decrease (around 43 days) between quarter 4 of 2011-12 and quarter 1 of 2012-13.

Ø                  as at 31 December 2012, there were considerably more children awaiting adoption than there were prospective adopters – about 6,600 compared to 1,800.

Ø                  applications for approval as prospective adoptive parents increased overall (by 4%) from the last quarter of 2011-12.

Ø                  approvals of new adopters increased by 25% during the same period.

Ø                  the timeliness from application to approval and from approval to matching improved across all quarters for adopters.

Data for the period January to March 2013 has recently been collected and the corresponding statistical analysis will be published in Autumn 2013.

No doubt, the positive aspects of the statistics from Quarter 3 of 2012-13 will be used by the government as demonstrative of its commitment to improving the adoption process.  I have looked at whether there is any substance to that expressed commitment in real terms in a couple of recent blogs – here and here.

 

No-one could seriously quarrel with the proposition that, where it is the best option for the particular child or children, the process of adoption should move as swiftly and efficiently as possible to that conclusion.  However, those working within the process – social workers, guardians, lawyers – caution that adoption is not the only solution for children who cannot live with their parents.  There may be children for whom long-term fostering is more appropriate, or whose interests would be best met through an intra-family placement (possibly supported by a special guardianship order). 

This is not a popular view with government myrmidons pushing a particular approach in furtherance of a financial agenda.  From a central government perspective, adoption is a cheaper alternative than ongoing local authority support.  Every child adopted is one less requiring funding, as the baton of financial responsibility passes from the State to the adoptive parents.

This blind rush towards adoption as the only “good” outcome is starting the have a pernicious effect.  In my day-to-day practice, I’m seeing instances of local authorities advocating adoption as the only solution, and not even paying lip-service to other alternatives.  Speaking with other practitioners, it appears these are not isolated occurrences.  This is hardly surprising, when the local authority’s government paymasters make it plain that the adoption agenda must be pursued over all others, and that continuing funding is dependent on arbitrary targets being achieved.  I’d be interested to hear from others whether they have had similar, or indeed different, experiences.    

Hearkening back to a theme I looked at last week, I’d like to see an analysis of the support provided to adoptive parents by local authorities after adoption.  What happens once the spotlight is no longer shining on the process?  What help are families actually being offered to adjust in the aftermath of the adoption order?  How many adoptions break down subsequently due to lack of effective support?  For obvious reasons, I doubt these are statistics the government will be looking to collate and publish any time soon. 

What happens after adoption? How a lack of support is failing children and families

The government is quick to trumpet at every opportunity its commitment to vulnerable children by speeding up adoption processes.  It has recently outlined   measures to ensure adopters are approved more quickly.  Changes include a two-stage approval process for adopters to ensure the majority are approved within six months.   A fast-track procedure for foster carers and previous adopters who wish to adopt will also be introduced.

Announcing some of these reforms in May 2013, Minister for Children and Families Edward Timpson, claimed prospective adopters had been dissuaded from adopting children in the past because of delays.  “So we’re overhauling the system to encourage more people to adopt, and making it swifter, more effective and robust,” he said. 

All very commendable.  But what happens next?  What help do families get to manage the complex needs of children and young people who often have had extremely difficult early life experiences? 

There are two answers to that:  one theoretical and one based in reality.

 

Taking them in that order, local authorities have an obligation to make adoption support services available to adoptive parents and children.  Authorities are required to undertake assessments of adoption support needs when requested by an adoptive child, their adoptive or natural parent/s, or their former guardian/s.

Support, which ought to be tailored to the particular needs of the child and his or her family, might include therapeutic help for the child and training for his or her parents to help them meet any special needs.  Financial support is also available, and may likewise assist in ensuring that the child’s particular needs are met.  Respite care might be offered in appropriate cases, to ensure families are able to continue to cope with stressful and difficult home environments in the aftermath of adoption.

This constellation of resources is designed to ensure that the children affected by adoption – who have often had profoundly damaging and difficult early lives with the corresponding physical, mental and emotional consequences – have the best chance of flourishing. 

 

So much for the theory:  what’s the reality?

Unfortunately, it is often very different.  As attractive as this package of support might appear, adoption support services are often extremely difficult to engage.  Local authorities, with limited budgets, often fight tooth and nail to avoid having to spend money to help families once the adoption order has been made.

The plight of those affected was the feature of a recent excellent piece in The Guardian.  One father recounted how his adoptive son returned to foster care after eight years.  “We couldn't cope, it was just too stressful”.  He and his wife had battled for years to access post-adoption support for the traumatised child.  They never secured funding for the specialist therapy they believed he needed.

"Our lawyer was arguing in court that we needed this help.  The judge was practically begging the social services to do something. But the lawyer for social services said it was a health issue, not their responsibility."

Another mother described post-adoption support as “shocking”.  Her adoptive son had become physically abusive following his childhood experiences.  The local authority, when asked to help, did nothing. 

 

And another mother told how her adoptive daughter had only been able to get the intensive support that had transformed her through direct payments, as an adult. 

"Social services would say, in shorthand, 'you're the mum, lots of mums with disabled children have difficult things to deal with, you have to manage'."

All too often, local authorities avoid providing help to those in need by sticking to the letter of their obligations.  Whilst they are obliged to undertake post-adoption assessments, there is no corresponding obligation then to fund the services to meet any needs identified. 

Recent changes to adoption law dance around what those working with adopted children and their families recognise is a fundamental problem.  The reality is that no additional resources have been committed by the government to local authorities to ensure that support services are available when and where needed.

 

As one of the mothers quoted in The Guardian piece observed, there’s no point in the government developing new adoption policies without any corresponding commitment to support parents who take on children with extensive early trauma. 

"Adoption isn't just this lovely thing.  It starts with a terrible loss, and if you don't deal with that at the beginning, then you store up problems in the future."

Children adopted from care have a range of needs due to their early life experiences, often of abuse or neglect.  The behavioural problems that this may cause are not resolved simply by being adopted.  If the government is serious about its commitment to adoption, it ought to put its money where its mouth is.  Make available in an effective way the support that these families need and deserve.  Because speeding up the adoption process is perfectly pointless if what then develops is a series of adoptions that break down because of inadequate post-adoption help. 

The Iron Curtain closes - Russia's anti-LGBTI adoption agenda

A few months ago, I looked in one of my blogs at Anglo-Russian intercountry adoption developments.  This followed the vote in the Commons in this country in favour of marriage equality.  In response, Russian officials warned that there might be consequences for British nationals seeking to adopt Russian children.

It turns out that wasn’t just sabre-rattling.  True to their word, the Russian parliament adopted a bill on support for orphaned children in its third and final reading in late June 2013.  The new law imposes a ban on the adoption of Russian national children by same-sex foreign couples.  Head of the parliamentary Committee on Security and Resistance to Corruption, Irina Yarovava, said:

"The decision to prohibit foreign same-sex couples from adopting Russian children is a measure to ensure the children’s safety and constitutional rights.

"Attempts to simulate the institution of the family and demands for allowing adoptions by same-sex couples are unnatural from the standpoint of the laws of nature and the institution of family law."

On 3 July 2013, President Vladimir Putin signed off on the legislation.  The Kremlin said in a Statement that:

“the measure is aimed at guaranteeing a harmonious and full upbringing for children in adoptive families.” 

For good measure, the new law also forbids adoptions by unmarried individuals who live in countries with laws that permit same-sex unions.

Russia’s recent track-record on LGBTI issues is hardly a commendable one, with parliament voting in mid-June almost unanimously to pass a law to punish the “promotion” of homosexuality with fines and gaol terms.  The law bans what it calls the “propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations” to minors. The word “homosexual” was removed from the text but in parliament one of the law’s backers said “traditional” relations were between a man and a woman.

“It outlaws the spreading of information aimed at forming non-traditional sexual attitudes among children,” said Duma deputy Elena Mizulina.  She also confirmed that it would become an offence to say that gay and straight relationships were equal, describing that as “a distorted perception”. 

Under the law people can be fined up to a maximum of over €2,000 if the offence is committed via the media.  Foreigners who promote homosexuality can be fined, detained for 15 days and deported.

That bill will now go to the Russian Senate before being signed into law by President Vladimir Putin – steps considered to be a formality.

Back to adoption:  according to New York’s Russian Children’s Welfare Society, there are currently more than 700,000 orphans in Russia.  This figure is increasing annually at a rate of 113,000 children.

Some of those hundreds of thousands of vulnerable children will be denied a chance to experience a loving family environment, on account of a prejudice about how worthy or otherwise prospective adopters are based upon their sexual equipment.  A view which runs contrary to all credible studies on topic, which consistently show the sexual orientation of adoptive or foster parents makes precisely no difference to the quality of the parenting they provide (see, for example, Cambridge University’s Centre for Family Studies’ research from March 2013).  

The real tragedy is that, whilst mewling about guaranteeing children a harmonious and full upbringing, the rule which excludes a particular group of individuals as potential adopters achieves just the opposite.  It only serves to narrow the pool of potential adopters and to ensure that vulnerable children in need of a stable family placement are denied one. 

Costs orders against local authorities in private law proceedings

A High Court Judge has taken the unusual step of ordering a local authority to pay a parent’s legal costs. 

The Judge, Mr Justice Cobb was considering a case concerning a six-year-old boy.  There was a dispute between his parents about questions of residence and contact – where he should live and the time she should spend with the parent with whom he did not live.

The father raised concerns about aspects of the mother’s behaviour:  in short that she had fabricated serious medical conditions in both herself and the child. 

The exaggeration or creation of symptoms of illness to gain investigation, treatment, attention, sympathy, and comfort is a recognised and serious psychiatric disorder.  It used to be called Münchausen syndrome.  The related condition was termed Münchausen syndrome by proxy, a particularly insidious form of abuse where the abuser seeks attention or sympathy by fabricating or inducing illness in a child.  The label “Münchausen” has fallen out of favour and the expressions “factitious disorder” or “fabricated illness” (by proxy, if it involves the abuse of a third-party) are preferred. 

 

Because of the serious nature of the father’s concerns, the local authority was directed by the court to prepare a report under section 37 of the Children Act 1989.  That section enables a court to direct a local authority to prepare a report if it considers that it may be appropriate for the State to intervene – either via a care or supervision order – in the child’s family life and upbringing.

And so a section 37 report was prepared.  Unfortunately, it failed to address in any meaningful way the serious issues raised in the case.  There was limited analysis of the fabricated illness and how that might impact on the care the mother provided to the child.  

 

The social worker who wrote the section 37 report, and her manager, subsequently gave evidence to the court.  During that evidence, it emerged that:

Ø                 the social worker had no training in relation to cases of fabricated illness;

Ø               she was not aware of guidance on the issue produced by the Department for     Children, Schools and Families in 2008 (“the DCSF Guidance”);

Ø             she was not aware of a programme for training social workers in dealing with fabricated illness cases recommended in the DCSF Guidance;

Ø              she had not spoken to the child’s GP or made enquiries of his school regarding his health;

Ø               she had not spoken to extended family members;

Ø               she was untroubled that the child’s attendance record at school was 69.4%, indicating she considered this to be “ok”.

When the deficiencies in the social worker’s and the local authority’s approaches emerged in evidence, the local authority asked for an opportunity to reflect overnight.  Having done so, the local authority Team Leader asked for an opportunity to “re-assess the situation”.  The local authority indicated it wished to hold a legal planning meeting – which it could have done in the many months leading up to the trial – urgently to consider the case.

It was agreed that the hearing could not proceed in those circumstances, and was aborted.

A further section 37 report was prepared and filed, and the issues were decided at a later date.

The question Mr Justice Cobb had to decide was who ought to pay the costs of the first trial, which had to be aborted on account of the local authority’s deficient approach. 

His Lordship looked at the relevant legislation about costs, the corresponding court rules and previous decisions interpreting both.  As a general rule, costs are in the discretion of the court.  The court may make at any time such order as to costs as it thinks just.

The Judge identified the appropriate test as being whether, in all of the circumstances, it was just to make a non-party pay the costs of proceedings.  He identified the following extract from an earlier case about applying that test to be of relevance: 

“In such cases it will be a matter for judgment and the exercise by the judge of his discretion to decide whether the circumstances relied on are such as to make it just to order some non-party to pay the costs.  Thus, as it seems to me, the exceptional case is one to be recognised by comparison with the ordinary run of cases not defined in advance by reference to any further characteristic"

Globe Equities Ltd –v- Globe Legal Services Ltd [1999] BLR 232 at § 21, per Morritt LJ

The Judge decided it was appropriate to make an order against the local authority to pay the father’s wasted costs of the abortive trial.  His Lordship was sympathetic to cases where minor failures in practice occurred, because of under-resourcing of local authorities.  Such cases would not attract financial penalty.  However, the failures here were not minor; the Judge described them as extensive.  They had had a profound effect on the conduct of the proceedings.  He said (at paragraph 52):   

“The Local Authority has in my judgment failed fundamentally to investigate, address, or analyse the serious issues in the case raised by the father's allegations when it prepared its section 37”

The Judge further was sympathetic to the lack of training on the part of the individual social worker, which could only be acquired over time and professional practice.  The failure justifying the costs order was a systemic one on the part of the local authority.  There was simply no training of social workers in the assessment and management of fabricated illness cases. 

The local authority’s hard-pressed financial resources did not exculpate it from its statutory responsibility.  This was not least given that the father was himself a man of limited means who could not afford the wasted costs of the abortive trial. 

His Lordship was fortified in his conclusion by reference to earlier decisions where costs orders were made against non-party expert witnesses who had caused significant expense to be incurred through disregard of their professional obligations.

The local authority was ordered to pay just over £10,000, a sum the Judge described as “relatively modest by the standards of some High Court family litigation”.

As a coda to the main Judgment, it is of interest that the Judge found the majority of the father’s allegations against the mother, regarding fabricated illness and fabricated illness by proxy, proved. 

And so a cautionary lesson for experts – which the President has been at pains to remind us in recent diktats includes social workers - in family proceedings.  Ignore your professional responsibilities at your peril.  There is of course a wider policy issue here:  doubtless many of the shortcomings of the local authority are a direct result of scandalous and continuing underfunding.  It is very easy to cut the Family Justice budget to the bone and pretend it will all be okay and that stakeholders will just muddle along and make do.  This decision demonstrates the fallacy of that line of thinking.  Making local authorities meet the financial consequences of central government funding cuts might just make the latter sit up and take notice.  Decisions like this speak the only language – a rudimentary monetary one – they seem to hear.  

The kids are alright? The behavioural health of children born through surrogacy

Children born using surrogacy may face greater adjustment problems than their peers. 

This seems to be the conclusion of a longitudinal study conducted by Professor Susan Golombok, of the Centre for Family Research at Cambridge University. 

Writing in June’s issue of Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, Professor Golombok observed:   

“Surrogacy children showed higher levels of adjustment problems than children conceived by gamete donation at age 7. 

“Signs of adjustment problems could be behaviour problems, such as aggressive or antisocial behaviour, or emotional problems, such as anxiety or depression.”

The research was more positive about other types of assisted reproduction, including IVF with donated eggs and sperm.

The sample breakdown for Professor Golombok's study

The study involved thirty families who had used a surrogate, thirty-one who had used egg donation, thirty-five who had used donor sperm, and fifty-three who had conceived naturally.

Professor Golombok acknowledged that the results had some limitations because of the relatively small sample size.  She also conceded it was possible that reproductive donation mothers might have skimmed over some of their children’s difficulties.

Parenting was assessed at age three by a standardised interview and by questionnaire measures of anxiety, depression, and marital quality.  The children’s adjustment was assessed at ages 3, 7, and 10 using a Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ).

 

The study found that candour and openness about the mechanism of their conception did not necessarily make the children’s lives easier, at least at age 7.  Parents who had kept their child’s origins secret showed elevated levels of distress.  However, maternal distress had a more negative impact on children who were aware of their origins.

Remarking on this, Professor Golombok said: 

“… contrary to expectations, it was children who were aware of the circumstances of their birth and whose mothers were distressed who showed greater adjustment difficulties, conceivably because they felt less secure when faced with their mother’s emotional problems.”

She concluded that “the absence of a gestational connection between parents and their child may be more problematic for children than the absence of a genetic relationship.” 

As surrogacy becomes increasingly popular as an alternative for parents unable to conceive naturally, studies like Professor Golombok’s will prove vital to ensure that the particular needs of the children born are identified and properly met.

International Surrogacy - Is a global response achievable?

A report published this week examines the legal structures relating to surrogacy across the EU Membership.

The report, commissioned by the European Parliament, was written by academics from the Université Paris, the University of Glasgow and the LSE.

It is a compendious document, weighing in at over 380 pages.  Much of that consists of an analysis of surrogacy law and practice in jurisdictions around the globe:  Australia, Belgium, Bulgaria, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Romania, Russia, South Africa and Spain.

A harmonised approach to surrogacy within the EU Membership looks still to be some way off.  In many EU Member States, surrogacy is illegal.  In others, there is no legal provision for it.  The report’s authors conclude that a principal aim of any EU response should be to go beyond dispute management and manage surrogacy as an international practice.  It should provide certainty on the legal parenthood of the child and his or her entitlement to move to and settle in the home country of the commissioning parents.

One of the key problems with the reform of surrogacy is that there is only limited data available about the phenomenon.  The report recommends that   improved systems be put in place routinely to record relevant information about surrogacy arrangements and outcomes across all countries.

Surrogacy is in fact on the agenda on a broader scale.  It is an issue that the Hague Conference on Private International Law is currently considering.  Whilst the EU (self-evidently) is limited to the twenty-eight Member States in Europe, the Hague Conference has global application.  One needs to look no further than the success of the 1980 Hague Abduction Convention for an example of just how effective some of the treaties emanating from the Conference have been in managing issues affecting families internationally.  That particular Convention now operates as between some eighty Contracting States, a number set soon to increase once Japan and others come on board.

In 2011, the Council on General Affairs and Policy of the Hague Conference invited the Permanent Bureau to intensify its work on the private international law issues surrounding the status of children, with emphasis on the broad range of issues arising from international surrogacy arrangements.

In 2012, the Council asked the Permanent Bureau to continue the current work under the 2011 mandate and further prepare and distribute a Questionnaire in order to obtain more detailed information regarding the extent and nature of the issues being encountered in relation to international surrogacy arrangements.  The Permanent Bureau will present its final Report to the Council in 2014.

As identified in the EU study, empirical data is key.  The Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference is looking for input from those who have been involved in international surrogacy arrangements, either in a personal or professional capacity.  Those with experience of such arrangements should contact the Permanent Bureau to ensure that the Report is as comprehensive as possible when presented next year. 

The Permanent Bureau is particularly seeking information from legal professionals with relevant practical experience in this field at an international level.  A Questionnaire directed to such individuals has been prepared and can be completed online.  Responses close at the end of September 2013, in order to allow the Permanent Bureau time to consider the responses and factor them into the Report.

 

For those considering embarking on a surrogacy arrangement, especially one with an international dimension, expert legal advice may prove crucial to a successful outcome.  But that advice needn’t cost the earth, and a fixed-fee arrangement ought to be appropriate in many cases.

Contact after Adoption - Is it still the exception?

A Judge in the High Court has taken the unusual step of making an order providing for an adopted child to have a continuing relationship with his birth family.

The child – referred to as P-M in the Judgment – was seven.  He had lived with his foster mother since he was four months old.  She applied for an adoption order in relation to him. 

Before the court at the same time as the adoption application was an application by P-M's maternal grandmother for a contact order.  P-M’s half brother and sister were staying with her.  She had been having contact once a month with P-M by agreement.  She wanted a order confirming that that arrangement would continue.  The application was supported by P-M’s own legal team.  It was opposed by the local authority, who expressed concern that too much contact would blur boundaries for P-M.

The Judge, Lord Justice Ryder (sitting as an additional Judge of the High Court) heard evidence from all of the relevant players.  He found that the foster mother had provided P-M with excellent care.  He observed that a contact order in favour of P-M’s grandmother could generate an anxiety of its own that could be antithetic to the hierarchy of needs which were the very reason for an adoption order.  He considered that, despite P-M's relationships with his maternal family being important, they must take second place to the primary relationship between him and his foster mother. 

However, ultimately he considered that contact was in the child’s interests and was necessary for his welfare to be safeguarded throughout his life.  He made an adoption order in favour of the foster mother and an order for limited contact.

The law and procedure on adoption is found mainly in the Adoption and Children 2002.  That Act imposes a duty on the court before making an adoption order to consider whether there should be arrangements for allowing any person to have contact with the child.  Courts are usually reluctant to make orders for post-adoption contact in the face of reasonable opposition from adopters.  Whilst relations with birth family members are important, the critical and most significant consideration is to ensure that the adoptive placement is as secure, stable and happy as possible.  For that reason, it is extremely unusual for a contact order to be imposed if the adoptive parent or parents oppose it. 

This is also consistent with the theory of adoption.  A child who is adopted legally becomes a member of the new family.  He or she stops legally being a member of his or her birth family.  The adopter/s obtain parental responsibility for the child.  Any person who had parental responsibility prior to the adoption order being made automatically loses it.  So, for all intents, the successful adoption process leads to the child becoming a permanent and full member of the new family. 

But for older children, who know and have important emotional ties with birth family members, it might well be in their interests for contact to continue post-adoption.  That was the conclusion Lord Justice Ryder reached here.  He decided that P-M's welfare throughout his life required the maintenance of a relationship with his maternal grandmother and sister through whom there would be a relationship with his extended birth family.  The contact should contribute to the child’s reassurance and stability - his feeling of identity - without creating a risk of disruption.  The key issue was which arrangement was best able to provide for P-M’s needs having regard to the effect on him during his life of ceasing to be a member of his birth family.

The Judge was keen to emphasise, however, that whilst on facts of the case adoption was not antagonistic to contact, if the court had to choose between adoption and contact, it would unhesitatingly favour adoption.