601
Politics / Re: Forced Adoption
« on: March 28, 2020, 01:35:13 PM »
The Law of Unintended Consequences Campaigners reject the ‘official’ position
However, following the introduction of targets to speed up finding a home for children in care, some then argue that the ‘law of unintended consequences’ came into play and these targets acted to promote undesirable behaviour from those in the child protection system. John Hemming has argued that these targets did little to help the older children already in care but rather had the effect of encouraging local authorities to issue care proceedings with regard to more ‘adoptable’ children so they would filter through the system, end up adopted quickly and improve the adoption rates.
This was denied at the time; see this report from BBC News On-Line in 2008:
* The Children’s Minister Kevin Brennan has denied claims that young children are being taken into care by local authorities to meet adoption targets. Mr. Brennan has written to two national newspapers to say there has never been any financial incentive for councils to meet national adoption targets. The claims surfaced over the case of a baby in Nottingham placed into care just hours after being born. Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming has accused the council of baby-stealing.
* In a letter to The Times and The Daily Mail, Mr Brennan says there were national adoption targets designed to place more children in care into loving, family homes. But, he writes, “they ended in 2006; and there was never a financial incentive for local authorities to meet these national targets.”
The belief that children are removed from loving homes in order for LA’s to meet their ‘adoption targets’ persists to date. There is no doubt that this version of events feels very ‘right’ to a significant number of people.
As Claire Fenton-Glynn comments:
* While national adoption targets were set for some years, these ceased in 2006. The government emphasised that targets were intended to make sure more children who had been adjudged to need an adoptive placement were found permanent homes. They were not intended to affect the judgment of whether the child was in need of adoption. However, despite the government’s statements, there is a danger that such targets do impact on such an evaluation, or at the very least, create the perception that they do so. Moreover, the government’s focus on adoption risks disadvantaging those children in care for whom adoption is not suitable. In the year ending 31 March 2014, only 16% of children who left the English care system were adopted, with others returning home, being placed with relatives, or with a special guardian, among other options. As such, an excessive focus on adoptive placements can mean that these others do not receive sufficient attention.
So what is really going on?
There are a number of elements we need to look at to try and work out whether assertions about a deliberately corrupt system contain any truth. Without a doubt, the child protection system is not working well. We need to think more deeply about why that is.
The continuing and repeating pressures on the child protection system which lead to growing distrust between parents and professionals;
The cost of care proceedings why would an LA bear these costs without very good reason?
What do the statistics tell us about adoption rates for babies or very young children?
Adoption rates are now set to fall in the aftermath of the judgment in Re B-S.
A system under pressure
Helping children is a human process. When the bureaucratic aspects of work become too dominant, the heart of the work is lost.
The Munro Review of Child Protection Final Report
We consider the history of concerns about the child protection system in more detail in this post. In brief, it seems that for very many years the system has become overwhelmed by the demands placed upon it. Excessive bureaucracy, dangerously high caseloads and low morale amongst social workers combine to work against good decision making and protecting children. Some argue that it is the Children Act 1989 itself that has contributed to the problems, as it has pushed the law into ever less measurable levels of ‘abuse’ rather than setting out realistically measurable standards to govern the protection of children. The fact that the system is under considerable strain and pressure is a serious problem for us all but it is not evidence of deliberate malignity on the part of those decision-makers.
The cost of care proceedings
It seems odd to suggest that LA deliberately set out to target children to adopt to ‘make money’ when you consider just how much care proceedings will cost them. Research from the University of Bristol in 2011 said this:
* Bringing proceedings is a costly and time-consuming business for local authorities. It has been estimated that each care case takes up 20 percent of a full-time social worker’s working hours for a year (Plowden 2009). In addition, the local authority will have to contribute towards independent assessments ordered by the court and may need to instruct barristers (counsel) to represent it at court. In order to ensure that proceedings are used only where the local authority can prove its case and court orders are required, as well as to control expenditure, local authorities have established internal procedures for approving court applications. Legal advice and senior management approval are generally required even where an application if made for an order to remove or detain a child in an emergency (Masson et al 2007; DCSF 2008, para 3.3).
However, some will assert that the cost of care proceedings is actually an illustration of the problem it’s a ‘gravy train’, keeping lawyers, social workers and experts in employment. So if the financial burden on the LA does not reassure people that care proceedings are not taken lightly, what can we statistics about children taken into care?
If Hemming and others are right, we should see a clear rise from 2000 in the number of babies or very young children taken into care and then adopted.
Lies, damned lies and statistics
We argue that the statistics do NOT support the argument that more babies and young ‘adoptable’ children have been targeted since 2000, although it is clear that the number of children being adopted has been rising. However, we agree that there are reasons for concern over a general ‘push’ for adoption as a ‘good thing’ that may lead to compromising the integrity of decisions made about children. There is now considerable interest in the statistics around adoption and placement orders, so we consider this in detail in another post.
Why we reject the allegation of systemic corruption
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
The court judgments, culminating in Re B-S that have so concerned Martin Narey were right to point out the dangers of sloppy analysis. But why had some cases got into such a mess?
Because the system was ‘evil’, the social workers were telling lies to get their bonuses and that all the lawyers and judges closed their eyes to this because of its actually a government policy?
Or is it more likely, that what we have is a child protection system that is often inefficient and/or overwhelmed by caseloads? where mistakes are made, but rarely due to deliberate malice?
The conspiracy theories take hold because they feel ‘right’ to a lot of people who may have good cause to feel that they have not been listened to or treated fairly. This can lead people to be unable or unwilling to consider a reality which does not accord with their strongly held perceptions:
* People say: “Let the facts speak for themselves”; they forget that the speech of facts is real only if it is heard and understood. It is thought to be an easy matter to distinguish between fact and theory, between perception and interpretation. In truth, it is extremely difficult.
For further fascinating discussion about the impact of cognitive bias and how hard it is to get people to abandon their narratives, even if they are based on a false premise, see this article ‘Your Brain is Primed to Reach False Conclusions’.
What is reality?
We have not been able to find evidence to support the assertion that the child protection system is designed and maintained deliberately to be corrupt or ‘evil’. Recent research from Cafcass says that LAs were right to make applications for care orders in 80% of cases they reviewed. But that, of course, does not mean the system is perfect. Far from it. If 80% of cases are ‘right’ we still have 20% which are not and that is worrying. There are also serious concerns that an ideological ‘push’ for adoption is masking proper consideration of statistical trends. We agree with that justice needs to be seen to be done and there should be as much openness as possible about such serious matters.
* We accept that there can be serious consequences when a system is overwhelmed by cases; individual practitioners may lack support, and there is a risk of bad or even no decisions getting made. There is a particularly sad example of that in the case of A and S in 2012 where the boys’ Independent Reviewing Officer had a caseload three times in excess of that recommended by good practice.
* Sometimes mistakes are made because lawyers and doctors got it wrong about the medical evidence. Here is an example of a case where the court decided there wasn’t enough evidence to conclude that a child suffered non-accidental injuries as this child also had rickets due to Vitamin D deficiency.
* There is no doubt that the Government wishes to speed up the adoption process and there are legitimate concerns about how the new Children and Families Act 2014 will operate. See further this article by Cathy Ashley of the Family Rights Group and here for the views of Barnados on the need to speed up adoptions.
* We note the conclusions of the Report of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development of the Council of Europe which was concerned by the high numbers of children in England and Wales who were adopted without parental consent, and commented (see para 74) that the UK’s refusal to reverse adoption orders where there had been a miscarriage of justice was a ‘misunderstanding’ of the best interests of the child, who had a right to return to his birth family.
* Possibly the most serious problem is that social workers in child protection work are asked to wear ‘two hats’ at the same time they are tasked with supporting families at the same time as they are gathering evidence against them. The tension and difficulties inherent in this dual role are obvious. See Wrennall, L. 2004 Miscarriages of Justice in Child Protection: a brief history and proposals for change.
But what we don’t accept is that these problems as serious as they undoubtedly are can legitimately lead to the conclusion that the whole system is corrupt and operating to ‘steal children’ to meet government-endorsed targets. We think it would be a great shame for children and parents if the legitimate debate about problems in the system is overwhelmed by allegations that have no basis in fact and which serve only to make parents even more worried and frightened about what the system might ‘do’ to them and their children.
The Way Forward.
However, we accept that it is odd if adoption really is the ‘gold standard’ for children that other jurisdictions do not seem to share the UK’s enthusiasm for adoption without the parents’ consent. We should always be open to more discussion and debate about what we should be doing to secure the welfare of children. You may be interested in this post describing the different approaches in Finland, where children who are taken into care will Iive with foster families or in institutional care. You may also be interested in this article by an adoptive parent in the Guardian from 2012, discussing the difficulties caused by a lack of post-adoption support. There are also concerns expressed by adoptive parents that they haven’t been given the full picture of their children’s backgrounds and this has caused enormous problems for the family.
* We agree that everyone who works in the system should be aware of the dangers of an insular or paternalistic approach to child protection issues.
* We agree that adoption may not be the best plan for every child and there should not be an automatic assumption that adoption is best. There is an interesting article criticising ‘adoption driven systems’ here.
* However, we think for many children subject to a final care order, it will represent their best chance of achieving a stable and loving home throughout their childhood.
* We agree that placements with family members should continue to be investigated thoroughly.
* We also agree that we need more consideration of how we support adoptive placements after an order is made as studies show the breakdown rates for adoptions can be as high as 25%. There is interesting research from the US here which looks at rates of adoption disruption and why they break down. Research published on April 9th, 2014 by the University of Bristol offers another perspective on adoption disruption rates, concluding that they are low but emphasising the importance of post-adoption support, particularly for older and more challenging children.
* Social workers need more help to deal with the bureaucracy of their job, so they can focus on working with and supporting families – the ‘reclaiming social work’ model needs wider implementation.
* What we don’t agree with is a debate that polarises around the term ‘forced adoption’ and politicians who advise parents to leave the country rather than engage with social workers.
* Where we all hopefully agree is that every child has the right to grow up in a safe home and that any child protection investigation must be carried out quickly and fairly.
We hope this site can be part of sharing resources and information to promote open and honest debate about the child protection system.
Further Reading
You can read here about government-sponsored research into the reasons why people are motivated to adopt or foster.
You may also be interested in what we say about post-adoption contact.
Read the transcript of the 9th Annual Debate of the Family Justice Council; Adoption without consent is wrong in principle. November 24th, 2015.
The debate in Westminster Hall on 25th November 2015 about Forced Adoption.
Excellent article from the New Yorker magazine about the history of child protection in the USA.
Heads Must Roll? Emotional Politics, the Press and the Death of Baby P Article by Dr. Jo Warner, Senior Lecturer in Social Work, School of Social Policy, Sociology and Social Research, University of Kent.
Silent crisis of inadequate councils caring for thousands of children The Guardian 18th August 2018
Revealed: cash crisis pushing child services to tipping point The Observer 1st Sep 2018
Born into care: Newborns in Care Proceedings in England The Nuffield Family Justice Observatory October 2018
Tortoise Media has considered and discussed the child protection system in a variety of pieces in 2019. See for example ‘I refused to say goodbye’ which examines some of the stressors on the system and the impact this has on parents.
Key Messages from the Department of Education Research
The Department of Education published ‘Adoption Cases Reviewed: an indicative study of process and practice’ in 2013 which provides a comprehensive review of contested adoption proceedings. Its key messages are set out below. While the review certainly did not find that everything was perfect, it did not conclude there was any evidence of systemic corruption or orders made for trivial reasons:
* The study confirmed routine local authority and judicial compliance with the required procedural and legal framework for adoption. Parents’ rights to due process in contesting and opposing care, placement and adoption applications were ensured. Decisions were taken by the court in an appropriate way, following the full testing of evidence.
* Local authority practice in the study cases pre-dated current statutory guidance, in which permanence is required to provide the framework for all social work with children and families. Where it lacked this perspective, social work intervention could not be relied upon to pursue effectively the protection and care planning that might have secured child safety on a permanent basis at home.
* In addition, quality assurance of child protection and care planning was insufficiently robust.
* Where risk assessment and protection and care planning lacked confidence and decisiveness, the right of the child to have a safe and permanent family life secured in a timely way could be compromised. Similarly, the right of parents to effective intervention to help them make necessary changes could be neglected where permanence principles were not applied equally to the process of rehabilitation.
* While no clear pattern of contestation emerged in these cases parents often argued that the local authority had sought merely to gather evidence to make the case against them, rather than intervene purposefully to support the changes required to keep the child safely at home.
* Extensive use of independent expert evidence and advice provided a guarantee that harm and risk had been assessed fully and decisions appropriately informed, once the case was in proceedings. However, the use of experts also caused duplication and delay. Current proposals for reform will need to ensure such evidence is deployed effectively within the sharper case management regime.
* This study suggests that the enhancement and quality assurance of the expertise and effectiveness of social work within the inter-agency system should attract policy attention. Timely and proportionate decision making is undermined as much by lack of case management continuity and of grip in making a judgment about parents’ capacity to change in the local authority as it is in the court.
* The reform process should be underpinned by a review of the philosophy, organisation, and support of local authority case management in protection and care planning, to ensure reliability of compliance with current statutory guidance that a permanence perspective is employed as a matter of routine.
* The reform process should also include a review of the availability and effectiveness of post-placement support for birth parents in all forms of permanent placement, including placement at home.
However, following the introduction of targets to speed up finding a home for children in care, some then argue that the ‘law of unintended consequences’ came into play and these targets acted to promote undesirable behaviour from those in the child protection system. John Hemming has argued that these targets did little to help the older children already in care but rather had the effect of encouraging local authorities to issue care proceedings with regard to more ‘adoptable’ children so they would filter through the system, end up adopted quickly and improve the adoption rates.
This was denied at the time; see this report from BBC News On-Line in 2008:
* The Children’s Minister Kevin Brennan has denied claims that young children are being taken into care by local authorities to meet adoption targets. Mr. Brennan has written to two national newspapers to say there has never been any financial incentive for councils to meet national adoption targets. The claims surfaced over the case of a baby in Nottingham placed into care just hours after being born. Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming has accused the council of baby-stealing.
* In a letter to The Times and The Daily Mail, Mr Brennan says there were national adoption targets designed to place more children in care into loving, family homes. But, he writes, “they ended in 2006; and there was never a financial incentive for local authorities to meet these national targets.”
The belief that children are removed from loving homes in order for LA’s to meet their ‘adoption targets’ persists to date. There is no doubt that this version of events feels very ‘right’ to a significant number of people.
As Claire Fenton-Glynn comments:
* While national adoption targets were set for some years, these ceased in 2006. The government emphasised that targets were intended to make sure more children who had been adjudged to need an adoptive placement were found permanent homes. They were not intended to affect the judgment of whether the child was in need of adoption. However, despite the government’s statements, there is a danger that such targets do impact on such an evaluation, or at the very least, create the perception that they do so. Moreover, the government’s focus on adoption risks disadvantaging those children in care for whom adoption is not suitable. In the year ending 31 March 2014, only 16% of children who left the English care system were adopted, with others returning home, being placed with relatives, or with a special guardian, among other options. As such, an excessive focus on adoptive placements can mean that these others do not receive sufficient attention.
So what is really going on?
There are a number of elements we need to look at to try and work out whether assertions about a deliberately corrupt system contain any truth. Without a doubt, the child protection system is not working well. We need to think more deeply about why that is.
The continuing and repeating pressures on the child protection system which lead to growing distrust between parents and professionals;
The cost of care proceedings why would an LA bear these costs without very good reason?
What do the statistics tell us about adoption rates for babies or very young children?
Adoption rates are now set to fall in the aftermath of the judgment in Re B-S.
A system under pressure
Helping children is a human process. When the bureaucratic aspects of work become too dominant, the heart of the work is lost.
The Munro Review of Child Protection Final Report
We consider the history of concerns about the child protection system in more detail in this post. In brief, it seems that for very many years the system has become overwhelmed by the demands placed upon it. Excessive bureaucracy, dangerously high caseloads and low morale amongst social workers combine to work against good decision making and protecting children. Some argue that it is the Children Act 1989 itself that has contributed to the problems, as it has pushed the law into ever less measurable levels of ‘abuse’ rather than setting out realistically measurable standards to govern the protection of children. The fact that the system is under considerable strain and pressure is a serious problem for us all but it is not evidence of deliberate malignity on the part of those decision-makers.
The cost of care proceedings
It seems odd to suggest that LA deliberately set out to target children to adopt to ‘make money’ when you consider just how much care proceedings will cost them. Research from the University of Bristol in 2011 said this:
* Bringing proceedings is a costly and time-consuming business for local authorities. It has been estimated that each care case takes up 20 percent of a full-time social worker’s working hours for a year (Plowden 2009). In addition, the local authority will have to contribute towards independent assessments ordered by the court and may need to instruct barristers (counsel) to represent it at court. In order to ensure that proceedings are used only where the local authority can prove its case and court orders are required, as well as to control expenditure, local authorities have established internal procedures for approving court applications. Legal advice and senior management approval are generally required even where an application if made for an order to remove or detain a child in an emergency (Masson et al 2007; DCSF 2008, para 3.3).
However, some will assert that the cost of care proceedings is actually an illustration of the problem it’s a ‘gravy train’, keeping lawyers, social workers and experts in employment. So if the financial burden on the LA does not reassure people that care proceedings are not taken lightly, what can we statistics about children taken into care?
If Hemming and others are right, we should see a clear rise from 2000 in the number of babies or very young children taken into care and then adopted.
Lies, damned lies and statistics
We argue that the statistics do NOT support the argument that more babies and young ‘adoptable’ children have been targeted since 2000, although it is clear that the number of children being adopted has been rising. However, we agree that there are reasons for concern over a general ‘push’ for adoption as a ‘good thing’ that may lead to compromising the integrity of decisions made about children. There is now considerable interest in the statistics around adoption and placement orders, so we consider this in detail in another post.
Why we reject the allegation of systemic corruption
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
The court judgments, culminating in Re B-S that have so concerned Martin Narey were right to point out the dangers of sloppy analysis. But why had some cases got into such a mess?
Because the system was ‘evil’, the social workers were telling lies to get their bonuses and that all the lawyers and judges closed their eyes to this because of its actually a government policy?
Or is it more likely, that what we have is a child protection system that is often inefficient and/or overwhelmed by caseloads? where mistakes are made, but rarely due to deliberate malice?
The conspiracy theories take hold because they feel ‘right’ to a lot of people who may have good cause to feel that they have not been listened to or treated fairly. This can lead people to be unable or unwilling to consider a reality which does not accord with their strongly held perceptions:
* People say: “Let the facts speak for themselves”; they forget that the speech of facts is real only if it is heard and understood. It is thought to be an easy matter to distinguish between fact and theory, between perception and interpretation. In truth, it is extremely difficult.
For further fascinating discussion about the impact of cognitive bias and how hard it is to get people to abandon their narratives, even if they are based on a false premise, see this article ‘Your Brain is Primed to Reach False Conclusions’.
What is reality?
We have not been able to find evidence to support the assertion that the child protection system is designed and maintained deliberately to be corrupt or ‘evil’. Recent research from Cafcass says that LAs were right to make applications for care orders in 80% of cases they reviewed. But that, of course, does not mean the system is perfect. Far from it. If 80% of cases are ‘right’ we still have 20% which are not and that is worrying. There are also serious concerns that an ideological ‘push’ for adoption is masking proper consideration of statistical trends. We agree with that justice needs to be seen to be done and there should be as much openness as possible about such serious matters.
* We accept that there can be serious consequences when a system is overwhelmed by cases; individual practitioners may lack support, and there is a risk of bad or even no decisions getting made. There is a particularly sad example of that in the case of A and S in 2012 where the boys’ Independent Reviewing Officer had a caseload three times in excess of that recommended by good practice.
* Sometimes mistakes are made because lawyers and doctors got it wrong about the medical evidence. Here is an example of a case where the court decided there wasn’t enough evidence to conclude that a child suffered non-accidental injuries as this child also had rickets due to Vitamin D deficiency.
* There is no doubt that the Government wishes to speed up the adoption process and there are legitimate concerns about how the new Children and Families Act 2014 will operate. See further this article by Cathy Ashley of the Family Rights Group and here for the views of Barnados on the need to speed up adoptions.
* We note the conclusions of the Report of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development of the Council of Europe which was concerned by the high numbers of children in England and Wales who were adopted without parental consent, and commented (see para 74) that the UK’s refusal to reverse adoption orders where there had been a miscarriage of justice was a ‘misunderstanding’ of the best interests of the child, who had a right to return to his birth family.
* Possibly the most serious problem is that social workers in child protection work are asked to wear ‘two hats’ at the same time they are tasked with supporting families at the same time as they are gathering evidence against them. The tension and difficulties inherent in this dual role are obvious. See Wrennall, L. 2004 Miscarriages of Justice in Child Protection: a brief history and proposals for change.
But what we don’t accept is that these problems as serious as they undoubtedly are can legitimately lead to the conclusion that the whole system is corrupt and operating to ‘steal children’ to meet government-endorsed targets. We think it would be a great shame for children and parents if the legitimate debate about problems in the system is overwhelmed by allegations that have no basis in fact and which serve only to make parents even more worried and frightened about what the system might ‘do’ to them and their children.
The Way Forward.
However, we accept that it is odd if adoption really is the ‘gold standard’ for children that other jurisdictions do not seem to share the UK’s enthusiasm for adoption without the parents’ consent. We should always be open to more discussion and debate about what we should be doing to secure the welfare of children. You may be interested in this post describing the different approaches in Finland, where children who are taken into care will Iive with foster families or in institutional care. You may also be interested in this article by an adoptive parent in the Guardian from 2012, discussing the difficulties caused by a lack of post-adoption support. There are also concerns expressed by adoptive parents that they haven’t been given the full picture of their children’s backgrounds and this has caused enormous problems for the family.
* We agree that everyone who works in the system should be aware of the dangers of an insular or paternalistic approach to child protection issues.
* We agree that adoption may not be the best plan for every child and there should not be an automatic assumption that adoption is best. There is an interesting article criticising ‘adoption driven systems’ here.
* However, we think for many children subject to a final care order, it will represent their best chance of achieving a stable and loving home throughout their childhood.
* We agree that placements with family members should continue to be investigated thoroughly.
* We also agree that we need more consideration of how we support adoptive placements after an order is made as studies show the breakdown rates for adoptions can be as high as 25%. There is interesting research from the US here which looks at rates of adoption disruption and why they break down. Research published on April 9th, 2014 by the University of Bristol offers another perspective on adoption disruption rates, concluding that they are low but emphasising the importance of post-adoption support, particularly for older and more challenging children.
* Social workers need more help to deal with the bureaucracy of their job, so they can focus on working with and supporting families – the ‘reclaiming social work’ model needs wider implementation.
* What we don’t agree with is a debate that polarises around the term ‘forced adoption’ and politicians who advise parents to leave the country rather than engage with social workers.
* Where we all hopefully agree is that every child has the right to grow up in a safe home and that any child protection investigation must be carried out quickly and fairly.
We hope this site can be part of sharing resources and information to promote open and honest debate about the child protection system.
Further Reading
You can read here about government-sponsored research into the reasons why people are motivated to adopt or foster.
You may also be interested in what we say about post-adoption contact.
Read the transcript of the 9th Annual Debate of the Family Justice Council; Adoption without consent is wrong in principle. November 24th, 2015.
The debate in Westminster Hall on 25th November 2015 about Forced Adoption.
Excellent article from the New Yorker magazine about the history of child protection in the USA.
Heads Must Roll? Emotional Politics, the Press and the Death of Baby P Article by Dr. Jo Warner, Senior Lecturer in Social Work, School of Social Policy, Sociology and Social Research, University of Kent.
Silent crisis of inadequate councils caring for thousands of children The Guardian 18th August 2018
Revealed: cash crisis pushing child services to tipping point The Observer 1st Sep 2018
Born into care: Newborns in Care Proceedings in England The Nuffield Family Justice Observatory October 2018
Tortoise Media has considered and discussed the child protection system in a variety of pieces in 2019. See for example ‘I refused to say goodbye’ which examines some of the stressors on the system and the impact this has on parents.
Key Messages from the Department of Education Research
The Department of Education published ‘Adoption Cases Reviewed: an indicative study of process and practice’ in 2013 which provides a comprehensive review of contested adoption proceedings. Its key messages are set out below. While the review certainly did not find that everything was perfect, it did not conclude there was any evidence of systemic corruption or orders made for trivial reasons:
* The study confirmed routine local authority and judicial compliance with the required procedural and legal framework for adoption. Parents’ rights to due process in contesting and opposing care, placement and adoption applications were ensured. Decisions were taken by the court in an appropriate way, following the full testing of evidence.
* Local authority practice in the study cases pre-dated current statutory guidance, in which permanence is required to provide the framework for all social work with children and families. Where it lacked this perspective, social work intervention could not be relied upon to pursue effectively the protection and care planning that might have secured child safety on a permanent basis at home.
* In addition, quality assurance of child protection and care planning was insufficiently robust.
* Where risk assessment and protection and care planning lacked confidence and decisiveness, the right of the child to have a safe and permanent family life secured in a timely way could be compromised. Similarly, the right of parents to effective intervention to help them make necessary changes could be neglected where permanence principles were not applied equally to the process of rehabilitation.
* While no clear pattern of contestation emerged in these cases parents often argued that the local authority had sought merely to gather evidence to make the case against them, rather than intervene purposefully to support the changes required to keep the child safely at home.
* Extensive use of independent expert evidence and advice provided a guarantee that harm and risk had been assessed fully and decisions appropriately informed, once the case was in proceedings. However, the use of experts also caused duplication and delay. Current proposals for reform will need to ensure such evidence is deployed effectively within the sharper case management regime.
* This study suggests that the enhancement and quality assurance of the expertise and effectiveness of social work within the inter-agency system should attract policy attention. Timely and proportionate decision making is undermined as much by lack of case management continuity and of grip in making a judgment about parents’ capacity to change in the local authority as it is in the court.
* The reform process should be underpinned by a review of the philosophy, organisation, and support of local authority case management in protection and care planning, to ensure reliability of compliance with current statutory guidance that a permanence perspective is employed as a matter of routine.
* The reform process should also include a review of the availability and effectiveness of post-placement support for birth parents in all forms of permanent placement, including placement at home.