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.

Yes miracle it is the child who should matter in all this, you are so right.

Absolutely Miracle, but the question is who should be the person who decides what is in the child's best interests? Because it is generally the parent with care, not the courts, unless that parent is sharing parental responsibility with an ex partner or with the state? So why treat adoptive parents differently? We can all think of cases where contact would be beneficial for the child but that is equally true - as an example - if an aunt or grandparent has raised a child for years and then a parent takes them back.

I still believe that the way forward lies in strengthening and improving contact support, not in legally qualifying the status of adoptive parents.

Also I don't let my birth child stay over at someone's house without me. I can't imagine a situation in which she would stay anywhere without me except perhaps with a friend for a sleepover until she is a teenager. So why would an adoptive child be any different?

I need to have that authority with my children - to decide what is in their best interests. If I can't have that then I am not their mother.

I agree. However I am not looking at direct contact I'm looking at making sure we get the letters we are supposed to and the LA doesn't just push birth parents away. I asked repeatedly over 4 months for my first letter. Is that really good enough? I also do wonder whether they only then sorted the letter because they were applying for the adoption order to be granted

I completely agree with Maryz

I struggle to see how a childs best interests are served by a court case. It is, after all, an adult attempting, for better or worse, to have contact on their terms, not on the childs terms. How about we support the adoptee to decide for themselves how much and when they want contact? I wish we could pay more attention to their rights and accept that they can make their own minds up without a court making them do things (what if a court were to grant a contact order and then the child changes ther mind about contact? It would have to go back to court and it would just be awful for the child when they should have the right to cut off contact if they like without having official involvement). And I think we have to trust adoptive parents to listen to their children's wishes and act on them accordingly, appropriate to the individual situation.

Hear, hear Maryz + Lilka. That's my concern too. I have no issue with contact per se, and I will embrace whatever contact is agreed to at the point of the adoption order unless something happens following that which makes us feel that it is no longer in the child's best interests (be that their request for it to stop, or something unrelated happening). It is our right as parents to do that. The idea that a court can come along and tell us that actually someone wants contact and they agree so we have to just lump it is awful - how does that create a stable and secure family for the child? The fact that you agree to adopt a child based on a type and frequency of contact which you feel happy with, can then at any point in the future be totally changed is appalling.

I think the issue of letterbox contact is an entirely different issue - and one that obviously does need more work. But the mention of overnight stays, direct contact and unsupervised contact makes me think that this is a whole different ball game.

But the mention of overnight stays, direct contact and unsupervised contact makes me think that this is a whole different ball game

Absolutely. I mean, unsupervised overnight stays?? That's crazy

Yes , if contact was abused we would have to reapply to court to stop contact rather than simply step in to protect our child like any other parent would. And we know how overstretched the courts are already.

Miracle I'm very sympathetic to where you are coming from but ypur situation isn't hugely typical. Remember that most of us have children who have been very hurt by their bps. If sometimes we sound over protective or defensive it is because we can't trust anybody else to passionately care about our children's wellbeing.

The main AUK boards or the new boards that were set up after the main boards were 'revamped' (into that silly blue bubbly weird set up that most people hated hence the leaving en masse)?

Don't know about the former, the latter....they ain't happy, had the same reaction as most of us

I just had a peek at the main AUK boards...apparently, a moderator said they have just sent the link to their press and policy team...so what, AdoptionUK, a massive national adoption charity, had no idea this was happening either? How many people did this change slip by?

This what is worrying me. Why was no one aware? Surely such a massive change to the law would need to undergo a period of consultation and discussion? Why weren't bodies such as AUK consulted? Were BAAF?

www.adoptionuk.org/forum-topic/new-childrens-and-families-act-2014
AUK are looking into it

If overnight stays are considered appropriate why are they up for adoption in the first place?
Long term FC would surely be the way to go

I think the overnight stays are a step too far.
My parents fostered before adopting and worked alongside Barnado's.
They told me awful stories they had heard about children being sent home for Christmas.
They would invariably come back black and blue from bruising, some with cuts.
If this isn't well regulated I pity these poor kids more than I do already, if this is possible.
We are supposed to learn and move forward not go back to the ruling of the 70's and 80's, its disgusting.

Can anyone tell me is if this bit....

"(2) When making the adoption order or at any time afterwards, the court
may make an order under this section—
(a) requiring the person in whose favour the adoption order is or
has been made to allow the child to visit or stay with the person
named in the order under this section, or for the person named
in that order and the child otherwise to have contact with each
other, or
(b) prohibiting the person named in the order under this section
from having contact with the child."

means that the order can be made stopping someone from having contact? Does it mean it could go either way? So a birth parent or other who tries to get contact could actually be stopped from seeing the child?

I think the only chance for a contact order to succeed post adoption order, would be if a) new evidence had appeared that made it clear that the initial decision for the children to be removed from their birth parents/placed for adoption, had been wrong. Or b) contact is clearly beneficial for the child, all parties agree, but for some reason it was not settled in the adoption order.
However with b) no court order would be necessary, as all parties would be in agreement anyway.

I'd really want to know more about this, but if that research paper has got it right, the new law in effect means that it will be HARDER for people to get contact orders against adoptive parents' wishes. That is really a very important difference. I can see very few exceptional cases where I would agree that it might make sense/be in the child's best interest to grant a contact order against the adoptive parents' wishes. But extreme/exceptional cases do not make good law.
However if this new law in effect makes it harder to gain such contact orders, then we should be welcoming the change, shouldn't we? Or maybe say - hang on, this is such a rare thing anyway, it never happened so why should anyone bother about it becoming even rarer. Use your resources for something else please.

So I really want to know, what we are comparing the new law with.

Maybe the reason why it has stayed under the radar, is because effectively nothing will change? Or, because no-one felt a need to oppose making getting contact orders harder?

I'm really sorry now. I feel that many people are now getting stressed and worried about this, when MAYBE it is all based on a half-truth. I never should have re-posted a troll's link without properly researching it first.

I have also seen it on AUK. Look forward to hearing what they have to say. I am appalled. How is this in the best interests to our children? I can just imagine it, our BM applying and direct contact being granted. Then through this, finding out where we live, the change in AD's name all before she will be mature enough. I know there are BF out there (miracle), who have the best interests of their children and would not want to cause any additional stress etc. However, this act is basically saying that the adoption order means diddly squat....I have not told DH yet...

I really think having done some googling that these provisions don't substantially change the situation.

It looks as if the reason for bringing it in is to do with other changes to residence and contact legislation when parents separate. Previously you could get a residence order specifying who child was to live with.

Then anyone could apply for a contact order in relation to any child, under which the court orders amount type and frequency of contact. BUT that person first had to get leave of the court to make the application.

So although contact orders are mainly used in separated families, it has always been open to a birth parent to seek leave to apply for a contact order in relation to their child. However I would imagine that the threshold for getting leave has always been very high. From that article it looks as if there has been the odd case over indirect contact, being decided either way.

We were told at adoption stage that the contact agreement was made on a goodwill basis, but that if we didn't keep to it there was the possibility that the birth parents could go back to court and seek a contact order. For that reason I haven't signed up to contact agreements for either of my children without feeling I could stick to them in good faith.

Now I understand that residence and contact orders are being abolished and replaced with 'child arrangements orders' that combine the two. Obviously not appropriate for an adoption situation. So it looks to me as if the new legislation is seeking to keep open the possibility of birth parents applying for contact, but make it specific to adoption. So in fact the legislation could be better for all concerned.

The question I imagine is whether badging this as adoption specific will raise awareness of the option, and whether birth parents will be badly advised as to their chances of making a successful application, leading to more distressing court cases on all sides.

I also wonder whether this could lead to prospective adopters thinking more deeply, and having more nuanced conversations with SWs, about what sort of direct or indirect contact is really right for the child they're adopting, and signing up to an agreement they are genuinely committed to keeping. It seems to me that if a contact arrangement had been properly considered, decided in child's best interests and kept to in good faith, a birth parent would be unlikely to obtain leave to apply for a different arrangement.

Mammoth post which I hope makes some sense and provides some reassurance all round!

Its not you scaremongering it is also being discussed on AUK so others are worried too

Thanks for that Swans.

no problem.

i do query how many adoptive parents have the legal position around contact properly explained to them, and understand that birth parents have always had the outside possiblity of applying for a contact order. I know we didnt. SWs made vague noises about birth parents going back to court if we didnt stick to the contact agreement, we queried this (werent anti contact just wanted to understand whether we were signing a legally binding document or not!), went away and being relatively legally savvy worked it out. at which point they said yes, we were right.

I feel SWs can have a very lazy attitude to contact at times - from a presumption of no contact, we have now moved something of a presumption of once a year letterbox which often isnt well considered, explained, or managed.

Id very much like to see thoughtful consideration of what contact is right for any particular child, and then to see whatever contact is agreed committed to, managed and supported. I am pretty sure that adoptive parents dont feel well supported in managing contact, and miracle's story suggests to me that birth parents who are able and willing to maintain indirect contact arent being well supported either.

for one of my kids I think letterbox contact adds nothing but takes nothing away and gives something to their birth relatives. For another of my kids we pushed for more contact with relatives who had clearly been important in their life. once either of them can express a mature opinion on what they want, I would expect to take that into consideration.

Every case is different and to my mind if we are going to have post adoption contact, we need to do it thoughtfully, do it right and support all parties. Perhaps this legislation may actually assist that in the long run if we're lucky?

Now I will shut up :)