« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
ADOPTION POLICY REVIEW GROUP: CHOICES FOR CHILDREN IN FOSTERING AND ADOPTION
Chapter 18. Adoption Agencies and Local Authorities
(a) Principles applied by agencies and authorities in permanence cases
These are discussed under Court Processes in Chapter 6 above.
(b) The place of local authority adoption agencies
The Scottish adoption service is provided by Scottish adoption agencies which are either local authority ones (and every authority must have an agency) or voluntary ones, called registered adoption services, s.1 of the 1978 Act. Prior to the 2002 Act, there was discussion in England and Wales as to whether adoption services should be removed from local authorities. This was strongly advocated by Patricia Morgan in Adoption and the Care of Children (1998). For a rehearsal of the issues, see Lowe et al (1999), pgs.437-441. In 2000, the Prime Minister's Review of Adoption took the view that adoption should stay with local authorities, 'but that significant improvements in LA performance should be sought.' - see Chapter 6, pgs. 62-64. This was followed by the White Paper Adoption: A new approach (Department of Health, 2000), which set out the changes proposed 'to improve council performance on adoption', pg. 43.
Although Scottish authorities vary in size, and it can be more difficult to provide comprehensive adoption services in smaller units, the problems about centralising adoption services include whether separating adoption decisions for individual children from an authority's other child care duties increases effective work for children or not. If adoption services are removed from authorities, it may be more difficult to look at a broad range of options for children. This issue was recognised in the Prime Minister's Review of Adoption, pg.62.
In addition, the Report of Phase I was not in favour of a national service, although it recommended centralisation of some services, including:
- a national recruitment strategy, Chapter 2, Recommendation 2;
- standardisation of pre-assessment criteria and materials, Chapter 2, Recommendation 7;
- establishment of an Adoption Support Network for Scotland, Chapter 3, Recommendation 8.
The Scottish Executive Response and Consultation Paper included the question: 'should we consider a national service?' para. 4.1, pg.4. Most respondents were not in favour of a national service.
(c) Stages of and planning to avoid delay.
This issue is crucial for plans for all types of permanence for children and is a matter of great importance to agencies and authorities.
As discussed in Chapter 6 above, about court processes, delay is in no-one's interests, and is particularly not in children's interests. In planning for a child 'looked after' away from home, there are three stages when delays can occur, before the lodging of a court application. These are identified on pgs. 17 and 18 of the APRG Report, Phase I. The stages are:
- between the child becoming 'looked after' away from home and a 'looked after' review decision to seek permanence.
- between such a review and the adoption/permanence panel.
- between the panel recommendation and the lodging of a court application for freeing or adoption.
The National Adoption Standards for England, Department of Health, 2001, state in Standard A.2.a) that 'the child's need for a permanent home will be addressed at the four month review and a plan for permanence made'. In other words, at the 'looked after' review at the end of four months of the child being away from home, permanence must be considered and planned for. Vera Fahlberg, in A Child's Journey Through Placement, (1994) suggests that such plans should be looked at as soon as the child becomes 'looked after' away from home, as one option among a number of them. Such proposals are to avoid unnecessary planning delays, whether the best permanence option is adoption or not.
A number of the recommendations in Chapter 1 of the Phase I Report, pg.20, are concerned with improved planning for 'looked after' children, including the avoidance of delay. Recommendations 2 to 9 could be assisted by greater specification within regulations and/or guidance. In particular, there could be:
- statutory timetables (if a child cannot return home) to limit the period between a child becoming 'looked after' away from home and a 'looked after' review decision to seek permanence;
- statutory timetables to limit the period between such a review decision and a permanence/adoption panel;
- a statutory requirement that a child's care plan must consider permanence options, including returning home, as soon as the child becomes 'looked after' away from home;
- a statutory requirement that parallel or twin-track planning must be considered for all children who have been 'looked after' away from home for a certain period (e.g. 3 months).
(d) Existing timetables for Local Authority Adoption Agencies
These are in regs.12-18 of the 1996 Regs and apply after adoption panel recommendations about plans for children. As part of the discussion around options for permanence and freeing (Chapters 1 and 3), changes may be required to the timetables, depending on other policy decisions.
(d) The Role of the Adoption Agency Decision-Maker
The agency decision-maker has a crucial role in the adoption agency planning system, following a recommendation by the adoption panel. However, there are few regulations about how a decision-maker should carry out the task and there is a wide variety of practice. In most cases, decision-makers make decisions that are the same as panel recommendations. But they can and do disagree with recommendations and make other decisions. Agencies are obliged to record in writing reasons for decisions which are contrary to panel recommendations, reg.12(2) of the 1996 Regs, but there is no other check or review.
Given that there have been legal challenges in cases where birth parents have not been at adoption panels making recommendations about their children, the question arises as to whether there should be a right of, say, written representation to agency decision-makers. If there was to be such a right, it would have to be decided:
- who should have the right; and
- whether it should be available in every case or only when decision-makers wanted to make decisions contrary to the panel recommendations.
Other issues in this area include:
- should the decision maker attend all panels as an observer only so that s/he is aware of all issues and concerns?
- how much detail should there be in minutes of adoption panels, a verbatim record or a summary of discussions?
- should every agency be obliged to appoint at least two decision makers?
- should there be an automatic internal review/appeal process where the decision maker does not agree with the panel's recommendations?
Overall, there needs to be consideration about whether duties for decision-makers should be set out in regulations and/or guidance. If there are precise rules or provisions for decision makers, it may be that the fourteen days in reg.12(1) will not be long enough properly to carry out the task.
QUESTIONS:
64. Acknowledging that the Executive's Phase I Response asked if there should be a national adoption service, and most respondents said 'No', are there further views on this matter?
65. Would new regulations and/or guidance help tighten up planning procedures and reduce unnecessary delays?
66. Should the timetables for adoption agencies in the 1996 Regs be reviewed?
67. Should there be regulations and/or guidance about the role of agency decision-makers?
« Previous | Contents | Next »