Budget changes the interagency adoption fee

[CloserToFiftyThanTwenty]

Apologies if this has already been done, but I hadn't clocked that the Chancellor had included in the Budget yesterday a new fund to, in essence, eliminate the fee that an adoption agency pays to another where the child/ren and parents come from different agencies.

I found out through this rather curious article (big warning: only read the comments underneath if you don't mind getting seriously would up...)

Wow, those comments! It's like crawling into a big vat of sludge, steaming with malevolent bacteria.

Tackling that fee is good news, but I must say I'm not at all keen on this article - rather surprised that BAAF wrote it.

I didn't like the article- and yep OMW on the comments
The fee thing should be good news though

I've never quite understood why adoption isn't centralised - surely best for children. So I think this fee removal is a good thing.

Selfishly - looking at the stats of adopters approved vs children waiting to be adopted puts me off going down route again. It's of course great if less children need adopting but I'd love to know how many children are in foster care and LAs are dragging their heels with getting adoption orders because of the recent cases.

I avoided reading any of the comments! I'll take your word for it OP andDevora!

OMG that comment section!!
I am truly shocked at the nasty, ill educated, bigoted and downright callous comments. I know you warned about it but ???????????? truly stunned.
Adoption is going to always being complicated process as it is dealing with complex issues and has a vital outcome that is so important to get right. Hopefully this find will go to reducing some of the unnecessary complexity so that they can more through and support the people who do this wonderful thing.

If only the ill educated general public knew that prospective adopters are not getting to see all of these 3,000 children's profiles that are waiting. At Leeds Exchange Day apparently one LA was showing 15 children but had in fact 90 children. In fact we have been told that the LA only show children that have been waiting longest. If we saw more profiles perhaps we could decide that we could in fact care for a child with more needs. Centralising matching can only be good in my opinion as the present system is not working and demoralising potential adopters whilst making us seem picky and heartless in the eyes of the general public.

I don't like that article at all, not one bit. It implies white adopters will not adopt BME children which I don't think is the case across the board. It is also blasé about saying that adopters might be prepared to take higher needs/ older children knowing that extra support is available (hollow laugh).

It really feels to be like blaming adopters for the many failings in the system

Surprised that came from BAAF

And hopefully Oasis, now the fee is gone they'll be prepared to show more profiles at the events. I would assume that knowing they have many adopters coming through the system, they'll only show those longest waiting to save on the fee for as many as possible, so this is great news and will lead to better, quicker matches, not cost effective matches.

As for the comments. woah. I'm used to reading horrific comments from the forced adoption brigade but that....that is something else. I wasn't really angry because I was just too overwhelmed by astonishment that anyone could even think those things let alone say them.

It is bizarre to see BAAF propagate this view that adopters can choose any child at all but look! - they always go for the white babies.

How much choice do we really get? We were pretty much told what category of child we could go for (had to be mixed race, had to be under 2, had to be female). There was, realistically, no choice to adopt a child with no risk factors whatsoever. There was the choice to say no to children with very steep needs.

In the end we got offered two children: one we turned down for various reasons. The second was linked to us through the National Adoption Register because apparently there were no mixed race infants in Greater London suitable for us over a period of nearly a year . We got shown a photo and a sketchy profile and it was, yes or no?

It is of course true that we might have been matched earlier if we had been able to consider children with higher care needs. But realistically, in a family with an existing child where the parent/s need to work, we would have required significant support with this. That's not me being prejudiced, that's me being realistic about the amount of time and support some children need. If the government had been prepared to subsidise my salary so I could work PT, I'd go for it [little winged pigs shoot past].

Really, really unhelpful to have BAAF promote the myth that adopters go on a consumerist trawl for 'designer' babies, and that the system is set up to accommodate that.

I agree - the biggest shock for me was that it was written by BAAF.

I find your comment Oasis worrying. Why not have all 70 profiles available if they haven't been linked. The quicker children are adopted - the better. Surely.

Can't access the comments from my iPhone. I was tempted to read them but maybe I am not meant to.

The racist comments astounded me - isn't the Telegraph site moderated?

I hope someone is kicking BAAF's ass. I know they're not responsible for the headline, but the rest of the article is barely better.

I've just reread the article and I"m feeling even crosser. Especially the bit about how potential adopters need to be encouraged to consider the child's needs and wants. Feck - there was at least one potential match that I didn't pursue further because, tempted though I was, it was clear that the child needed a FT parent in the home, which I can't offer.

I'm sure we all know adopters who have basically given everything else - career, hobbies, social life - to devote themselves to the care of their children. Not everyone can do that, and they shouldn't be guilt-tripped into doing so. Springtimemama is so right - this is a HUGE ask and its' so unfair to imply adoptive parents have some kind of moral deficit - ESPECIALLY in the light of the pathetic support that is available to us. This article is yet another in the genre of 'let's invite non-adopters to all gather around and cluck that adoptive parents are selfish consumerists who will stamp over starving children's heads to get to the blonde blue-eyed baby'. I'm so pissed off with it.

So does this mean that there will be a 'drive' for adopters who are prepared to parent one of this 'more difficult to place children' and the rest of us waiting can go .................

I've re-read the article (and the comments....urgh....) and feel really cross now too. It does nothing to help non-adopters understand what is happening with the system; it does nothing to support adopters - it's actually pretty shameful of the BAAF to have failed so abysmally here...

Does anyone know anyone connected with BAAF to ask what they were thinking of with the article?

I agree, BTW, that adoption should be centralized - I've never really understood why it remains a LA-owned responsibility

It's incredibly poorly written apart from everything else; just really stilted and awkward. It reads like an advertorial for BAAF.