New Children and Families Act 2014

[64x32x24]

the family law provisions of above, coming into force this month apparently. Anyone know anything about this?
Apparently it may have consequences for adoption.

suesspiciousminds.com/2014/03/16/applying-for-contact-after-a-child-is-adopted/

(Sorry to repost a link from a thread which was deleted earlier today. I do believe it may be relevant.)

It seems there is a new provision for birth parents to apply for contact (direct or any other kind) at any time AFTER the adoption order.

I personally am open to the idea of contact and would be happy to explore it even years down the line. I think there should be something in place to help re-instate contact if it has broken down previously, or if at the time of the adoption order, the birth parents' circumstances were not right for contact, but have now changed. In general, I think there should be more support for contact (direct and letterbox), on all sides. I'm not saying that contact is good in every case, but just referring to those cases where it may well be a positive thing all round.

However I worry that courts may force contact even if the adoptive parents do not agree; and that adoptive families may feel less secure/permanent, if at any time they could be invited to court to determine if contact should be granted.

[namechangesforthehardstuff]

We're just having a look at it now but maybe we need someone like Spero to give us a steer on this?

[namechangesforthehardstuff]

Looks very fucking scary from where I'm sitting. Why didn't our SW tell us about this? Fuck me

[DaffodilDandy]

Name, I'm with you. That looks absolutely terrifying. I had (naively?) thought that following the adoption order we could go off on our merry way just like any other family, it seems that's not the case?

Is this law UK wide? Why has there been no mention of this until now? It's coming into force in 20 days, ffs!

I understand that situations can change for birth parents etc, but I don't see how having the threat of something like this hanging over you for years on end is beneficial to either the child or the adoptive parents?

This is really worrying. Needless to say I will be calling our SW first thing tomorrow.

[DaffodilDandy]

I've just caught up with the other posts on the chat board. I really can't get my head around this all.... I can't remember who said that this was potentially a game changer for them, but that's certainly the level of impact this is having on us.

We'll be the legal parents of a child, but can be forced to have contact with the birth parents (or anyone who's cared for them for a year) at any point until the child is 18? So, our legal status as parents is second rate to a biological parent? WTAF?

This whole thing is just unbelievable.

[namechangesforthehardstuff]

They can force overnight stays. Can they force unsupervised contact?

[namechangesforthehardstuff]

Or anyone related to them by blood or marriage or civil partnership. And no limit on number of applications so they could make vexatious applications every six months forever.

It was me who said it was a gamechanger.

[namechangesforthehardstuff]

Why? Why would they do this? Are they so fucking overrun with brilliant potential adopters that they wanted to thin the herd a bit?

It's retrospective too.

[DaffodilDandy]

Fucking hell. Overnight stays. That bit, I missed. I don't understand how it can be allowed? All the existing adoption orders that have been granted are now going to be subject to this? Is that even legal? All those adopters adopted on the basis that none of this could happen.

I feel sick just thinking about this. How are we ever supposed to feel like a family if the threat of this is constantly hanging over us?

[namechangesforthehardstuff]

Yes that's how we feel Daffodil Overnight stays? So I can control who one of my children stays with but not the other. How the fuck does that work?

[DaffodilDandy]

Exactly. I thought there was a massive drive at the moment to recruit more adopters? This is surely going to send them all running to the hills and quite rightly too.

I totally understand that birth parents/carers/whoever have rights etc, but this seems to be entirely at the expense of our rights as adopters to a family life. As if adopting wasn't hard enough as it is, they've decided to throw this in too. They're basically relegating us to the position of long term carers, or at least that's how it's making me feel.

[64x32x24]

namechanges, it's the first I heard about it today too. I agree it does sound scary!

I can imagine that if this starts actually happening, then some people may indeed be put off adopting.

However from that link, and the comments section too, it seems like it would take a lot for a court to even grant leave to apply. And if I understand correctly, you could argue that even just having to discuss possible contact at court would be disruptive for the child/the adoptive placement, and hence sufficient ground would be given for the court NOT to grant leave to apply. So, very few would even pass the first hurdle. The chance that you'd be forced at some point in the future to enable contact, is probably very slim.
However it could turn out to be a real nuisance, if you find yourself having to appear at court year after year to argue the same point... instead of getting on with your life.

I can imagine a situation, where contact really would be a good thing, but for some reasons or other, the message is not reaching the adopters. For instance if social services have badly let down the birth parents and refuse to acknowledge that circumstances have changed. Then at least the birth parents could resort to court.
But I do think in this instance actually the birth parents should have a different way to address this.

Please don't panic over this namechanges, I'm sure someone wise will be along soon to explain it all.

[HappySunflower]

I'm so shocked about this.
Mind you, its not clear as to whether or not applicants to the court will be entitled to legal aid. I suspect not, in which case I doubt that many will actively pursue an application.
But even giving them the right to do so is horrifying.

[namechangesforthehardstuff]

They don't produce legislation on the basis that it won't be needed so presumably they are envisaging that someone somewhere will get the final stage i.e. court ordered contact. That is a level of risk which we may not be comfortable with.

[64x32x24]

oops lots of cross-posting, sorry.

[DaffodilDandy]

Yeah, that's my concern, they wouldn't be bringing in the legislation if they weren't intending to use it. All it will take is for one case to be approved, and it'll snow ball from there.

I wish this was working hours. I really need to speak to our SW.

[64x32x24]

I'm sorry to have caused such upset!

My guess is that it is in light of the recent high court recognition that permanently removing a child from their birth parents, severing all legal ties, is about the worst thing you can do to someone, short of the death penalty. And that therefore there need to be LOTS of checks and balances. And perhaps maybe something to address those few cases where wrong decisions were made?
So, if a child was removed from birth parents, placed for adoption, legally adopted, then new evidence appears that the initial removal was based on wrong information, e.g. the birth parents never did harm the child, the child has since been found to have a condition which caused the injuries which led to them being taken into care. You can't undo the adoption; that would be wrong. But shouldn't everything be done to redress the injustice that has been done to both child and birth parent? Of course. But what if the adoptive parents refuse to enter into any sort of conversation?
I hope that this is what they have in mind.

[Devora]

As I said on the other thread, I think letterbox contact needs to be greatly improved. Dedicated, skilful social workers with adequate resources to do the job properly should be able to handle this. For example, should birth parents improve their situation to the extent that direct contact is a real possibility, or if for whatever reason someone has been left out of contact arrangements that should be included, it should be for social workers to raise this with the adoptive parents and discuss with them how this might be compatible with the best interests of the child.

What are the situations in which the courts are better placed to do this than a social worker? Where the adoptive parents are refusing to countenance contact, perhaps? Even if they are being reasonable, is it still a price worth paying to undermine their parental responsibility in this way. Only, I would argue, if birth parents could be subject to the same.

One last thing is the security of the adoptive family. I was horrified when I discovered just how much of a security threat my dd's bps are - AFTER the social workers had told them our names, identifying details, and set up a face to face visit with the bm. I have always been positive about contact but I do feel a continuing sense of threat and this proposal would certainly exacerbate that.

[64x32x24]

And even then. I imagine myself, BC and AC, years down the line, it turns out that my child was removed from their birth parents unjustly. Now suddenly everyone expects me to kind of share my status as AC's mummy with someone else. I would keep all parental rights but one of my children would spend every other weekend with their other mum.

It would be incredibly hard.

I can only hope that we would be able to cope.

(But then. If DP and I were to separate, DP had a new partner, and DS would spend every other weekend with his new step mum... Reality for many people.)

[Devora]

OP, I agree with you I expect that is the sort of situation they have in mind. And normally I get itchy with slippery slope arguments. I suppose I just worry that if the climate gets increasingly pro 'open' adoption then adoptive parents may feel that the deal they signed up for is no longer valid.

I still think there's better ways of handling this.

[DaffodilDandy]

I understand by the law of averages that there will be a (very) small number of cases where children have been removed from their birth parent's care when they shouldn't have been. However, I don't see how giving these parents the right to (extensive) contact following the adoption order should be at the expense of every adoptive parent. It's putting the needs of one set of people against those of another, and that just isn't right to me.

The comparison of step parents is a good one, but the difference is that there none of the adult parties involved will have ever had the child legally removed from their care, and the step parent won't have a biological connection with the child.

I just can't get my head around this. I don't understand why this hasn't been mentioned before - we only did prep six months ago, this can't have been cooked up since then?