Going for broke

Adoption iStock 000010273534XSmall 146x219Is there an alternative to adoption? Mark Roscoe considers options for placement which leave the door open to ongoing child/parent relationships and possible reunification.

When chatting to people, the subject of what I do for a living sometimes comes up. I explain that I am a barrister and that much of my court work involves children law. What does that mean? I reply that there are private law disputes between separated parents and there are care proceedings. The response to the mention of public law work is that it must be terrible to see so many horrific cases of physical and sexual abuse.

As all care lawyers know the reality is that, whilst there are extreme cases, a great many everyday matters concern neglect. The image of neglect for the lay person might simply be (for instance) a filthy house with no food in the fridge. In practice, the grounds for alleging neglect can be far more subtle and are frequently based on domestic abuse in the home. Often the mother has had a string of highly unpleasant partners and seems unable to break the cycle of meeting men who seem reasonable at first but then act in a terrible way, often in front of young children.

What surprises people when you describe this situation is not that the State becomes involved – the risks are, after all, fairly obvious – but that the ultimate outcome increasingly seems to be adoption. Although the bluntness of adoption has been softened slightly over the years with the prospect of (usually very modest) indirect contact with the birth family, the finality of an adoption order does seem harsh where an often young and immature parent is faced with such an all-or-nothing result. Pre-proceedings work is a very good idea in principle, but there is no greater wake-up call for many such parents than the first court appearance and talk of interim care orders. By then, it may well be too late.

It is certainly possible to understand why adoption is considered a necessary outcome, since the hope is that the child will be placed in a permanent home with loving and willing parents who have been scrupulously vetted as to their suitability. Part of the rationale is that lesser forms of remedy will not provide the child with permanence. In particular, ‘long-term fostering’ does not necessarily mean that the child will stay with the same foster parents in the long-term. This can result in a number of changes of home for a youngster who perhaps already suffers with behavioural difficulties or attachment issues, a sense of rejection and of self-blame.

Parents can sometimes turn their lives around and emotionally vulnerable mothers can learn to protect themselves. The problem is that it is difficult to prove that this is feasible within the timescales that are impossibly short for sustained and meaningful counselling to have a demonstrable impact. If adopted, their child is gone from them in practical terms no matter how well the parent’s own life has progressed. The prospect of contact orders (now under s. 51A of the Adoption and Children Act 2002) enables the court to order contact between birth parents and adopted children but in considering applications for leave such parents will frequently find their hopes defeated by concerns over disrupting the placement. It may therefore be time for a more comprehensive re-think about the way that long-term fostering operates.

The motivation for prospective adopters in seeking a permanent addition to their family is doubtless varied, but financial advantage is unlikely to play a part. Conversely, although people may choose to become foster carers for altruistic reasons the fact that it attracts financial reward cannot be ignored. If we are to find an alternative means of achieving a satisfactory degree of permanence whilst keeping the door potentially open for reunification down the line, then perhaps there needs to be a statutorily recognised scheme including a financial bonus: a meaningful sum for every year that a child remains within the same foster family.

This could be under a form of a ‘Foster Family Care Order’, to be proposed as the permanency option in a final care plan. It would be intended to ensure that the child remains with one family as if they had been adopted (although with the legal status of a special guardian), unless and until a birth parent is in position to safely resume care. Safeguards could be put in place to ensure that such foster carers are not seriously financially disadvantaged by successful applications to discharge a ‘Foster Family Care Order’.

Whilst it should not be a factor relevant to social work decision makers, sceptics might note that there can be a distinct cost advantage to local authorities in pressing for adoption rather than fostering. A bonus scheme to encourage stable long-term foster placements for as long as it takes is hardly likely to find favour with cash-strapped officials, although if funded by way of tax relief this could place the burden on central rather than local government. However, a caring and compassionate society must allow families to be together where it is safe for the children. Lifelong all-or-nothing decisions made after a final hearing sometimes lasting only a day cannot be the only way.

Mark Roscoe is a barrister at 36 Bedford Row. He can be contacted This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..