I am very sorry for everyone who loses/lost a child. My heart goes out to you.
We did foster to adopt, and it has all gone well. Child was placed with us after placement order but before matching panel. In fact, intros started the day after PO was granted. There had been a plan to do intros before PO but the LA changed their mind about that at very short notice. Matching panel didn't happen for another 3 months, so fostering to adopt allowed our child to come home 3 months sooner than otherwise. Given child's age, these 3 months were highly significant.
IMO that's precisely what foster to adopt should be. Our LA just brought down the average time from PO to matching panel to just under 6 months. This, to me, is a major problem - especially given that apparently there are lots of prospective adopters waiting, so it is not a problem of not being able to recruit adopters. It is a shame for children to 'lose' half a year like that. Half a year makes a huge difference to a 12 months old baby, or to a 2 year old toddler, and even to a 4 year old who will be about to start school - in fact any child at any age will have major things happening within half a year, so it is never really ok to say 'what is half a year more or less'.
This time between PO and matching panel could be shortened by more efficient linking processes (which can start before PO has been granted), and by shortening the wait for panel dates to come up once a child has been 'linked'. But whilst the time to matching panel is still so long, it is the prospective adopters who can shorten that time by agreeing to foster-to-adopt. They take a risk, certainly - but the risk is not that there will be no placement order (as it has already been granted), but simply that matching panel will not agree with the match. And this is a risk that is much more palatable, I'd say. They also potentially take on extra duties - there may still be occasional ongoing contact, or a final 'good bye contact' coming up, they may have to write foster carer reports, etc. But again these are things that many prospective adopters will be willing to deal with.
However, IMO it is a completely different thing pre-placement order. When SS are still assessing birth family, they should in my opinion, and I believe it is actually also the law, also be assessing how they could HELP any birth family members to be able to raise the child. E.g. they should not not just say 'child's auntie x lives in a bedsit which is unsuitable for having children, hence we will rule her out even though she might in other circumstances be a great choice for placing this child with'. But rather they should say 'auntie x might be an option, so we will assess her situation as to how she could be supported to be able to raise the child - would she need to be supplied with a council flat?' I know that in reality SWs often only assess the status quo, but as I said I believe they ought to also assess how someone could be supported to enable placement of a child with them. In other words, before a PO has been granted, SS should be making every effort to enable the child, who is currently in foster care, to return to the birth family.
Now SS may realise that chances are slim that a particular child will be able to return to birth family, despite their best efforts. So at the same time (concurrently) as they are planning/working towards solutions for returning the child to birth family, they can start working towards 'plan b' - so that once it has become certain (i.e. placement order granted) the planning for adoption does not have to start at scratch, but is already well under way. And because they are making plans for both pathways at the same time (returning to birth family/adoption), this is called concurrent planning. It is important to note that technically in these cases, adoption is always 'plan b' - even if it the more likely outcome.
Now it seems to me that situations that are actually cases of 'concurrent planning' are being sold to prospective adopters as 'foster to adopt' cases. It is not primarily the terminology that is the problem, but rather how the prospective adopters are informed and prepared. Concurrency carers should always be absolutely aware that SS are still assessing birth family, and are ideally also assessing how they could provide support enabling the child to return to the birth family. Concurrency carers should be aware that adoption is only 'plan b'. In fact, concurrency carers should be willing to support the child's return to birth family. E.g. they should be happy to show BM how best to settle the baby, or to help an auntie get to know the child. They should be non-judgemental, and although they would be happy to adopt the child if 'plan a' fails, they too should - in theory - be primarily working towards and supporting 'plan a' i.e. a return to the birth family.
Most prospective adopters, even if they would be happy to do fostering-to-adopt, would NOT be willing to be concurrency carers. And it is totally unfair of SS to sell what are in reality concurrency situations to prospective adopters by claiming that they are essentially foster-to-adopt situations.
I believe that some of this happens because many SWs are not too clear themselves about the differences between concurrency and fostering-to-adopt (and I don't mean just the terminology). But I have to admit that I also harbour a suspicion: Given that the number of placement orders has reduced by 2500 in the last year, but presumably the same number of children have been taken into care as previously, I think it is likely that many LAs are struggling to find enough foster placements for their children. There are many prospective adopters around, waiting for a match - so why not use them? I suspect that in some cases, SS are placing children with adopters under the 'foster-to-adopt' label simply because they do not have enough foster care places. Children who would never usually have gone into such a scheme.
I am afraid that if you have fostered-to-adopt a child but the judges decide the child is to move on, there is nothing you can do to change that. What you could do, if you so wished (and if you were not hurting too much) - make complaints. Your LA should not have placed this child with you under the pretence that it was a foster-to-adopt situation when in fact it was a concurrency situation. They should not have misused you as foster carers because they were short of foster places.
But it would be a hard fight, to get such a complaint acknowledged. With potentially little to no benefit to yourself. And seeing as you maybe are still hoping to adopt in the future (once the pain of your current loss is no longer quite as acute as it is now) I can imagine that few if any people in such sad situations actually do make a complaint. Which is perfectly understandable and justified. It is this utter dependence on adoption agencies which allows things to go on unchanged.
