Association of Lawyers for Children supportive of “three-stage process” proposed for consideration of contact between adopted children and birth family

The Association of Lawyers for Children (ALC) has expressed support for the three-stage process proposed by a Public Law Working Group (PWLG) sub-committee for achieving best outcomes for adopted children with respect to contact.

The PWLG interim report, which was prepared by a sub-group chaired by Mrs Justice Judd, considered five key areas: International adoptions, consensual adoption, access to adoption records, processes and procedures in court, and contact.

On adoption and contact, the subgroup said the question of “How can we achieve the best outcomes for adopted children with respect to contact?” should be considered against three distinct stages of the adoption process:

1. Before any application is made for adoption: “the preparation stage.
2. While the placement/adoption application is before the court: “the court stage”.
3. After an adoption order is made: “the post-adoption stage”.

In its response to the consultation, the ALC said it had “noted the three-stage process recommended and is supportive of this”.

The PWLG sub-group recommended that there “needs to be a sea change in the approach to the question of face-to-face contact between the adopted child and the birth family or other significant individuals”.

It added: “Greater consideration needs to be given, throughout the child’s minority, as to whether they should have face to face contact with those who were significant to them before they were adopted. It is recognised that this will not be safe for all adopted children, but the current system whereby face-to-face contact is the exception rather than the rule is outdated.”

In respect of this recommendation the ALC said it was “very much in favour of the premise that post-adoption contact must be fulfilling, and child focussed”.

It added: “The ALC is concerned by what appears to be the ‘standardised’ current approach to post-adoption contact, that being that a birth parent should have only letterbox contact, with very little consideration to that specific family. This recommendation is therefore welcomed.”

The interim report also recommended “consistent” training for prospective adopters throughout England and Wales, which the ALC said it “fully supports”.

In relation to the sub-group’s recommendation of on-going training for social work practitioners and lawyers as to the benefits of open adoption, the Association said: “The ALC agrees that no real shift in thinking will be achieved without training professionals across the board. It would seem prudent to engage with local FJBs [Family Justice Boards] to arrange consistent training in DFJ areas. Joint training of social work teams, lawyers and judges within local areas would encourage a consistency of approach and would be more likely to lead to change.”

The ALC was supportive of the recommendation that identification of those persons who may be important to a child should be undertaken at the Family Group Conference and during any pre-proceedings kinship assessment stage, however, it noted that the recommendation would require “a shift in thinking which will require particular emphasis in any training programme”.

The ALC meanwhile welcomed the sub-group’s recommendation that the “full range” of contact options (including digital options) should be “actively considered” by professionals and the court during care and placement proceedings rather than an assumption that contact will be via letterbox only.

The sub-group’s interim report had stressed that “we do not suggest that contact orders should routinely be made in the face of opposition from adoptive parents, whether at the time of the adoption itself or later, but it is believed that opposition is much less likely where adoptive parents are given a thorough understanding of the child’s needs right at the start and are given the right support”.

However, the ALC added that it would like to see the promotion of contact for any future siblings born to the family who are not considered as part of the plan at the time of placement / adoption order being made.

The PWLG sub-group’s report meanwhile recommended more court judgments be published in full where contact has been a feature.

The ALC supported this recommendation, but said it “also advocates an ongoing cross LA discussion within Designated Family Judge (DFJ) areas where LAs can share their experiences and discuss good practice, and positive outcomes”.

It added: “Challenges can also be discussed in order that these are not repeated in other cases”.

In relation to a number of the PWLG sub-group’s 23 recommendations in relation to adoption and contact, the ALC cautioned of the need for proper resourcing.

Also responding to the consultation, Nagalro, the professional association for children's guardians, family court advisors and independent social workers, revealed it is in “broad agreement” with the sub-group’s recommendations regarding adoption and contact.

It suggested that training and resources are important because post-adoption contact must always be a child-specific decision.

“Great harm could be caused if an assumption that there should only be letter box contact were to be replaced, in practice, by a comparable assumption that direct post-adoption contact will take place,” Nagalro said.

“Professionals need to understand the issues and how to manage them to ensure the best outcome for that individual child.”

Nagalro added that it was also important to remember that the position regarding contact is likely to change from time to time as the needs of the child and the ability of the birth parents and/or other family members to meet those identified needs change. “On this issue, we would also wish to stress the importance of the availability of support for the adopters should they request it and the importance of ensuring that adopters know how to ask for support.”

The organisation added that it would like to see any final best practice guidance “making it clear that the trauma suffered or witnessed by children before their removal and the extent to which contact may re-traumatise the child should be a significant factor when considering any arrangements for post-adoption contact”.

Nagalro said: “We would hope that this issue forms a part of the assessments being made when professionals and the court are considering post-adoption contact options.”

In October, the President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, “welcomed and endorsed” the publication of the interim report, while recognising there will be differing views about some of the recommendations.

In a speech last month, Sir Andrew suggested that there was a “pressing need” for courts and those who advise them to modernise the approach that is taken to supporting young, adopted persons by “enhancing the degree to which they may maintain some form of relationship with their birth family after adoption”.