Letterbox contact can no longer be seen as appropriate regime for most cases, and should “certainly not be the norm”: Family President

The President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew McFarlane, has outlined the need for a “new approach” to post-adoption contact, noting that letterbox contact can “no longer be seen as the appropriate regime for most cases”.

‘Letter-box’ contact typically involves the adopters and the natural parents communicating with each other by a short letter or report once each year.

Speaking at the POTATO (Parents of Traumatised Adopted Teens Organisation) conference last week (17 May), Sir Andrew highlighted the potential role for ongoing contact as a “mediating and moderating” intervention – taken to reduce the impact of the profound challenges that previously abused children will face.

He returned to themes that he began to develop in the Mayflower Lecture, delivered to the Plymouth Law Society in October 2023 - ‘Adapting Adoption to the Modern World’ - in which he highlighted a report by the Public Law Working Group (PLWG) Adoption Sub-Group.

The report recommended a “greater focus” on the issue of contact with birth families, and for adopted adults to have more straightforward access to their records.

At the Mayflower lecture, Sir Andrew noted that following the end of the days of ‘forced adoption’ or ‘relinquished babies’ through reforming legislation in the 1970’s, adoption is now principally used for children who have been protected from child abuse by removing them from the care of their natural family.

He highlighted how, with the explosion of digital communication in the past two decades it is possible for an adopted child, “quietly, alone in their bedroom, without the knowledge of their adopted parents”, to trace and find their family.

In his latest speech last week, he said: “One of the four strategic priorities for Adoption England is that of ‘Maintaining relationships’; this priority is focused on modernising contact for adopted people so that they can maintain relationships with the people who were important to them before they were adopted. The team at UEA [University of East Anglia], led by Beth Neil, have been commissioned by Adoption England to develop a theory of change to guide work around maintaining relationships.

“What it is possible for me to say, however, is that the work that is currently being undertaken by UEA, and that underpins the article, demonstrates that the debate has already moved on from ‘whether’ there is a need for a new approach to post adoption contact, to ‘how’, what will be a wholesale change of culture, it is to be accomplished in practice.”

He noted that the target of the work is to establish the “default” position for future adopters so that the clear expectation will be that of maintaining birth family relationships as the starting point for every child, only to be ruled out where it is unsafe or unhelpful, as opposed to the current default with contact only being ruled in in exceptional circumstances.

Looking at how the court should use its power to make orders to influence the future development of contact – Sir Andrew advised: “Firstly, and I would suggest most importantly, the likely template for contact arrangements post adoption should be set at the placement order stage. […] Also, there is nothing wrong, and I would suggest it should be good practice, for a s26 contact order to contain a recital as to the court’s view on contact arrangements post-adoption.”

He continued: “As the only family members who are likely to be before the court will be the child’s parents, it is natural that the prospect of future contact with them will be considered. Courts should, however, look more widely in every case. This is particularly so when a child has siblings who are not likely to move with them to their adoptive home.”

Looking beyond siblings, Sir Andrew observed there may be other relations, for example grandparents, uncles or aunts who may safely meet with a child, even where it is unsafe for parents to do so.

He said: “In this regard I would mention the work the ‘Lifelong Links’ project which has been developed by the Family Rights Group to foster links between children in the care system and those from their family or earlier life who are important to them. The work of Lifelong Links, which has been the subject of a three year follow up study, is seen to make a marked contribution to the confidence, sense of identity and well-being of the children it has worked with.”

Turning to the court’s role at a final adoption hearing, where there is power to make orders for contact, Sir Andrew said he would like to “stimulate discussion about quite a radical change”.

He said: “Currently, the court’s order at this final stage is something of a ‘one-stop shop’ with a regime of contact being set on the basis that this is what will apply for the remainder of the child’s childhood. I would question the wisdom of this continuing to be the case. The stage of making a final adoption order may, indeed, be precisely the wrong moment to fix the contact arrangements for all time.”

He questioned: “Rather than fix the contact arrangements, once and for all, on the making of the adoption order, isn’t there real value in there being a formal review of contact with the birth family some two or more years later? By that time parents or other family members may have come to accept the situation and be more available, in emotional terms, to support the child in their adoptive home.”

The Family President concluded that letterbox contact can no longer be seen as the appropriate regime for most cases, and should “certainly not be the norm”, as it has been for many years.

He directed that the question of contact should never be seen as an ‘add on’ issue, either at the placement order stage or at a final adoption. “Rather, it should be centre stage and seen as an integral part of the child’s support package as they move on towards adoption, adolescence and adulthood in the years to come.”

The full speech can be seen here.

Lottie Winson