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.

OK, one more thing - folk might find it interesting to read these cases. Seems to me the legal reasoning is very clear on the possibility of granting post adoption contact against adopters wishes, but also on the extreme unusualness of it.

www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed1319

www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed114900

My ds is coming up 4 so of course won't actually get the letters but hearing how I'm doing well. Plans for my shared flat (only making my room n balcony nice) how my legs healed I hope is positive for him. I also wrote I love him which is important and thank you for his hand prints etc.

I certainly didn't write anything damaging to him or to undermine him being settled and happy. Sharing what my Christmas was like etc I feel will hopefully make him feel more secure in years to come that losing him didnt destroy his birth mum (it has but I am building myself back up and making a new life)

Adoption UK have passed this onto their legal team and they will update the thread on their board tomorrow with an update.

Maryz, this is what I am struggling with. Obviously as we are yet to adopt, the discussions about contact, the adoption order etc are happening all the time with every profile. I have lost count of the number of times that our SW has said that once the adoption order is granted, if at any point we, as the child's parents, feel that the contact we agreed to at the point of the adoption order is no longer in the best interests of the child we can stop/pause or if we feel that more contact or a different type of contact would be best we can increase/change it.

I can foresee a scenario where we stop contact at the request of the child (which seems to be fairly common), and the person who has been receiving the letters then goes to court to have these reinstated (or possibly direct contact etc). Who's interests is that in? Certainly not the child's.

If we can be trusted enough to adopt, we can be trusted enough to make decisions on behalf of our children. I have no doubt there will be some who make the wrong decisions for the wrong reasons, but surely that shouldn't mean that the majority of us are punished?

Understood Maryz and my kids are much younger, too young to be meaningfully involved in contact. I wouldn't be surprised if DC1 asks for contact to be stopped, and if that happens I will respect his wishes. If I feel contact is damaging for any other reason I would change or stop it.

But what I was trying to say - and I was trying to reassure - is that it doesn't look to me as if the remote possiblity that I would have to stand to that decision in court is any different before or after this change in legislation. I do think SWs either didn't understand the previous position themselves, or didn't feel it necessary to discuss with parents.

I don't know. Is it better to tell adopters the complete truth which has always been and I think is still, 'yes you can take whatever decisions you think appropriate around contact, but there is a very very small chance that that decision may be challenged in court' or to say what is nearly the truth 'you can take whatever decisions you think right about contact'. Better to frighten people with the absolute truth or to give them ever so slightly false reassurance?

Sorry but I don't care what the courts say

I would tell them to frigg right off what would they do place the child back with t he BP or in care

Can I also say that they wouldn't be entitled to legal aid to get the contact

Good posts Swansinflight, although I've currently no idea whether the new legislation will facilitate good post-adoption contact outcomes or not.

To put what I am about to post in context, it’s probably important to state my perspective is from very rare circumstances regarding what happens to contact with birth family members who have caused NO harm to any child (current or previous) and for whom ceasing contact is likely to deny a child some level of significant benefit or cause an unnecessary level of emotional distress.

I do want to stress that a court will only ever place an order without agreement from an adopter, where it is EVIDENCED to be in the child's interest to do so, not the birth family member. I think it is generally too easy to assume that contact orders are sought "by a birth family member, for the birth family member" rather than the child, although I appreciate there are possibly more often than not, orders sought from a selfish motivation. (I would hope the process of requesting leave to apply for a contact order ensures only genuine and deserving cases are heard.)

In our case, it infuriated me that on many occasions we were told by various legal people and by the LA "you are lucky to get what you got". Er, no. Actually it's not for us, it's for the child.

There is much to Devora's point around who is best placed to decide what is in a child's best interests post-adoption. Clearly it is preferable and will most likely be the adoptive parents in most cases. HOWEVER, currently, it is entirely possible for an LA to fail in supporting an adopter around the issue of contact, whether that’s through providing opportunities for gaining knowledge and understanding of current thinking and recommendations around contact, or practically through assistance with organising, liaising and resolving issues etc.

There are also issues around how a child's feelings are ascertained, particularly if a child has conflicting feelings of torn loyalties, which they may find hard to approach with their parent for fear of upsetting them.

I agree entirely with the call for better post-adoption support, independent if required.

I also want to state clearly my views are based purely on my own experiences. I don't believe the adoptive parents in our case have been well informed or supported by the LA (criticised by both Judge and GaL) and this has had negative repercussions on contact, which is incredibly sad. It’s my hope that any change to legislation ensures adequate information exchanges, with support and flexibility to meet the needs of individual cases are put in place. I am currently unaware how well current proposals will do that and share concerns that this is being rushed through under the radar.

Good points eeyore.

I really worry that adoption is being pushed forward as 'the' solution for children in care without any real thought being given to how it is supported and how the needs of the older, often more traumatised children, can be met.

I wonder if this does all stem from Michaeal Gove - who was adopted as a six week old baby and seems to think adoption is the perfect panacea. And cynically, the gov might think this will save them money as the child if adopted then becomes somebody else's problem and the parents will be his advocates/ spend money on him etc.

But that is not the most common age group to be adopted anymore! and the older the child, most usually the greater their needs.

i would be really interested in hearing more about what the various adoption groups are discussing with their legal teams.

I think there needs to be put in place more support. It shouldnt be a case that contact is delayed or doesnt happen due to the local authority. I have hand prints dated January so I am guessing the adopters were waiting on social services to write their letter and I was told I had to wait for them to write first. I got absolutely no help or guidance (apart from not allowed to call myself mummy and not to tell him I miss him) to write my letter and I very much doubt they got any help

As social services are supposed to have the childs interests at heart surely they should be facilitating contact rather than blocking it? Especially when it's in the child's best interests and all parties are willing? Otherwise they are denying that child the right to contact with their birth family surely?

I have spoken to our SW this morning, who has reassured me that the new Act is nothing to be concerned about. She said that their understanding is that it's for the very rare situations where birth parents/carers have been the victims of a miscarriage of justice. The example she used was a woman being charged with murder following the death of a baby later found to have died from cot death, but who lost custody of her children following a murder charge and who would not be awarded any level of contact in the adoption order. In this instance the birth mother would be able to apply to get indirect contact following being cleared of murder. She said that it is not for situations where birth parents who already have indirect contact can stop taking drugs etc and then apply to have direct contact. In any situation it would have to be shown to be in the child's interest etc.

This has put my mind at ease significantly, although it'll definitely make me more aware of the situation surrounding the birth parents when we're looking at profiles etc.

Re. Michael Gove - I actually think his focus on adoption has been a positive thing for adoption in general. I think for a lot of children being taken into care, adoption is the best option for them, and the current situation of children being removed from their birth parents and then spending an indefinite period of time being passed back and forward does an awful lot of harm, that results in them later being hard to place children. Obviously though, you can't just remove children and immediately place them for adoption, so I don't know what the answer is. But I do know that having a cabinet minister who is adopted, and who wants to improve adoption can only be a good thing overall.

That's definitely more positive than it first sounded.

Is it better to tell adopters the complete truth which has always been and I think is still, 'yes you can take whatever decisions you think appropriate around contact, but there is a very very small chance that that decision may be challenged in court' or to say what is nearly the truth 'you can take whatever decisions you think right about contact'. Better to frighten people with the absolute truth or to give them ever so slightly false reassurance?

I would say truth, every time. With an explanation of why it needn't be frightening, but in the best interests of their child and long-term relationship with their parents.

If it is a frightening concept to an adopter, their support needs need to be looked at, and adequate services in place to meet those needs.

That's not meant to sound judgmental or minimise concerns and how difficult these aspects are for potential adopters. My point is that a lot of fears can be allayed through quality information and proper support, which is evidently lacking through cuts etc.

I agree that having Gove and Timpson at DfE has been hugely valuable for adoptive families. I don't believe we would have made the progress we have with ministers who lack their personal experience.

But I don't think their experience is representative. Adoption disruption rates - about 20-25% - are far too high given the amount of assessment that goes on re matching.

I see too many cases where months are wasted searching for an adoptive placement for a challenging older child. There needs to be more willingness to fund/find therapeutic residential placements, not simply knee jerk 'adoption always best for all children' reaction.

Spero why are the government so reluctant to fund therapy which would save them millions in the long run?

I posted this on another thread and I would love to understand more, genuinely.....

Have you watched the documentary about Maisie? (I bet you have) Has anyone else seen it who knows how and why decisions, about how money is spent, are made?

www.dailymotion.com/video/x154fol_a-home-for-maisie_people

It is very interesting that at the end of the programme (spoiler alert) the family only feel able to adopt Maisie if therapy is available. This very expensive therapy is actually less then a fifth of the cost of a secure unit, possibly more like a tenth of the cost (per year!!!). I think there are answers out there and yet they cost! Ironically, the therapy costing less than a secure unit and yet people who are adopting struggle to get that help.

We (as taxpayers) should tell our penny pinching government that we want our tax money spent on prevention and not just on clearing up the 'mess' created in the lives of vulnerable young people who have been treated very badly. (I am not calling the people themselves anything negative I am saying that the negativity has been created in their lives through no fault of their own and as tax payers we will pay for the solutions so why not pay for prevention where possible!). I have not yet to find any campaigns about this so if anyone knows of any, please do shout.

Spero this is not directed at you, just at anyone who might know! Thanks.

I have no idea. I have had cases where I have said to a LA 'if you will just spend £50 on a session of contact, this will stop an application to court which will cost you many more thousands' and the response is, they would have to talk to someone else who controls budgets.

I wonder whether the people controlling the money are too far removed from what is happening on the ground, or there is a general lack of any long term thinking, or they really are so stupid they think it is better to cut £1,000 worth of funding now, only to be met with a bill for £100,000 in foster care and therapies down the line.

It is utterly crazy. Rather than spend a few thousand to keep a child with adoptive parents, they refuse to support therapy with consequent risk that placement breaks down, child becomes further damaged and traumatised and the consequences of that reverberate for a life time.

It's madness. I don't know why it happens. A bit of counselling here, a bit of respite care there, so many families could be helped. Hut what little funding there was must now be going, even acute mental health needs for children cannot be met.

Spero how can ordinary tax payers make a difference, is there any campaign group, please? Any one?

I think the issues on budget are simply that different bits control different budgets and there is little joining up. Ie cock up not conspiracy