Adoption vs SGO

[primaryteacher90]

Hi all! This is my first ever post, so I apologise in advance if I break any conventions :-)

My partner and I are in the process of being assessed to become connected persons foster carers (used to be called kinship care) for my little niece (1yo). We are near the end (our assessment was very positive) and we are about to go to panel.

The social worker's plan is that once we have completed one year as foster carers, we would be eligible to apply for the full special guardianship order (SGO) and would gain majority parental control. We have repeatedly brought up that we would prefer to adopt her once our year as foster carers is up, but social services say that that would be impossible as I am biologically related.

Does anyone else have any experience with this? Has anyone adopted a niece or nephew outright? Are there any social workers who would mind clarifying?

Thank you in advance xx

@wherethewildthingis "Adoption means a parent no longer has pr and legally the child has no relationship with them. It is a hugely intrusive draconian step and the court is very reluctant to do this unless absolutely necessary. So put simply you won't get an adoption order if an Sgo will suffice."

I don't understand why you say "hugely intrusive draconian step".

If the parents have relinquished a child or proven unable to care for the child then removing the child and passing their care
legally to someone able to care for them does not seem hugely intrusive but rather wholly appropriate.

In our experience you really have no support as an SGO family as SS hand over the child and literally walk away.

I think this point, by flapjack, is the key one. I only have second hand knowledge, so take with a pinch of salt, but I hear bad things about SGOs being used as a cheap way to avoid adoption and not provide support.

For most other purposes an SGO will be fine for the reasons already discussed on the thread. My understanding is that wildthings point about the difficulty is correct, but not absolute.

Still, if both were equally valid in the family situation, I would personally go for adoption, because I would want the full PR and the legal title of parent. I would want to be able to ensure consistency for the child.

I don't understand why you say "hugely intrusive draconian step"

I think objectively that is true- draconian, in that it is essentially a form of force; and intrusive, in that the state is breaking a fundamental relationship. Doesn't stop it being somewhat insensitive phrasing for this board, but I'm sure wildthings was just meaning from the view of the court process.

There are lots of other adjectives you could use about adoption that would be just as true: life changing, life saving, hope giving, positive, loving, generous, brave, selfless... I could go on, but ultimately, once that court process is over, the important bit is that it's just a different way kids get their parents.

I agree, legally, adoption is draconian, of course it is. It's completely removing legally the relationship between a child and parents.

That doesn't mean it isn't right for some children, our children.

In many countries they don't do it, (yet somewhat hypocritically, in my mind, often have similar adoption rates to us, but the children come from overseas, and similar levels of children needing to be removed from birth families, but they don't give them the benefit of permanence.) and just have forms of long term foster care. I'm not sure the UK has it 100% right, and is certainly an outlier in european terms in this, but I don't think it's wrong, obviously, either.

In terms of SGO vs adoption, I don't know enough to help, sorry, except I would follow Boston's advice of asking for funded legal advice.

I work alongside independent social workers and other assessors. My experience is that @wherethewildthingare is right and the courts do not support adoption instead of SGO. Guidelines change all the time so I am reluctant to say this definitively but I don’t believe a biological family member can adopt a child. I’ve never seen it and my understanding of best practice guidelines is that it would not be considered appropriate or in the interests of the child.
Contact arrangements are recommended by the assessor or local authority and enforced by the court, but they will consider your willingness to facilitate contact. How much the parents ‘deserve’ to see the child doesn’t really come into it, they’ll look at how much contact is in the child’s interest and what the impact of contact would be. They might also look at contact with the other side of the child’s family so if you are her maternal they might want her to retain contact with her paternal family including grandparents. The thinking is that she has a right to a clear understanding of her origins and that this is in her best interest in terms of her identity.
(I understand not everyone will agree this is what’s best for her)

Sorry one more thing, under SGO BP will retain their identity as her parents but not control. They won’t have the right to make choices on her behalf or to intervene in your family life and this is permanent. The assessor should have explained exactly what approval for an SGO means for you an the child in detail as part of the assessment so don’t be afraid to ask.

Am I working on a different definition of Draconian? "..(of laws or their application) excessively harsh and severe."

How is it "excessively harsh and severe" to remove parental rights from parents who have either relinquished children or shown by neglect or abuse (or neglect and abuse) that they cannot care for a child?

How is it wrong for a child to be released to new parents who will committ to that child and provide the care the child needs?

I think, personally, countries that do not allow the children removed permanently from parents to be adopted legally are massively failing those children. Children are not parents' possessions.

Quite shocked really that there is the idea parents unable or unwilling to care for their children (once all reasonable help has been offered) should retain any parental responsibility.

One cannot really sever the biological relationship a parent has with a child, and letters box is to be encouraged, but why should parents retain legal rights once children are legally permanently removed?

As far as I am aware UK adoptions are centered around the needs of the child, not any of the adults in adoption 'triangle'.

So, as I said before, if there are benefits to the child in an SGO or fostering then of course that is right. But the needs of the child come first. Anyway, all the best OP.

'In our experience you really have no support as an SGO family as SS hand over the child and literally walk away'
That was what I said earlier....
I think there are only 1 or 2 of us on this board who hold an SGO. There is literally no support for SGO children, they are not recognized anywhere post SGO. But OP appears to want SS to disappear after the 1st year fostering so that shouldn't be a problem.....(I honestly think i'd prefer to foster knowing how little support I can access)

notmyname - the bit about 'retaining power over her'.....our nephews BP share 1% PR. They cannot do anything without OUR permission. They cannot be in a room with him without my say so. They do not know where he lives, their solicitor does not know. The court withheld that information from all of the court documents. They know 1 mobile phone number and that is how they can make contact.

most people knowing our family assume he's adopted, some assume i'm a childminder, some assume he's my BC.....i don't give a jot what people think. I let people think what they want and nod along generally to protect his privacy....

if i had just 1 x 1 year old on a SGO, i'd say yes this is my baby isn't she lovely - how old is your baby......and get on with it...the public won't understand the difference between i'm fostering my niece/ i hold an SGO for my niece/ i've adopted my niece....very quickly you may find yourself saying - this is my baby girl.....
BUT you'll have a whole year of fostering her to find your story at playgroup/the library/park etc....and you may be worrying about nothing at the moment....
but i can understand why you worrying about adoption/SGO cos I would be too where you are.

but from one mummy who has both adopted and SGO children....

1% PR to the birth parents on an SGO and a different surname - it really honestly means nothing.....
its all the same difference really.....just pieces of paper.....

GOOD LUCK!

Sorry cross-posted with @theyoniwayisnorthwards

If direct contact with birth family is thought best for children is SGOs why is it not recommended for other adopters?

It does seem a curious mix to me, I'm not sure I really understand how this SGO works.

"...under SGO BP will retain their identity as her parents but not control. They won’t have the right to make choices on her behalf or to intervene in your family life and this is permanent" So how is that parenting?

It feels like birth parents retain an honoury position. Which I can see would work if the children had a relationship with the birth parents but birth parents could not care for them. For example due to illness etc.

But for very young children who won't necessarily have a relationship with the birth parents it doesn't make sense to me.

I suppose also an SGO for grandparent might mean they can retain a relationship with their own child and grandchildren separately, that does make sense.

@bostonkremekrazy your post is lovely and hopefully reassuring.

When we adopted DS he was 3, we decided not to tell people he was adopted, except for existing friends, of course.

I told DS he could talk about it but he might get questions he found hard to answer. He really didn't until now.

At 7 he is now talking about it more to select friends.

But certainly echo bostonkremekrazy that I just told new people he was my little boy.

We used to say on these threads 'Fake it til you make it'. And that has really been true.

My son has grown into my son! I never forget he has a birth mum and we have letter box contact.

Also just to say SGOs and foster carers in my area (I have met some of both, all lovely) do training support with us adopters. All included so we are all offered support together (training).

Those leading are able to sometimes say things that may be different in various circumstances.

Anyway OP I do hope you get all the answers you need and the best support for this little one.

@italiangreyhound because with an SGO the careers generally (not always) are the birth family or have some meaningful connection or relationship with the child. Contact isn’t a requirement of an SGO, a recommendation about contact must be made but the assessor has the option to recommend no contact. Each case is different and recommendations for contact depends on the perceived risk or benefit for the child.

@theyoniwayisnorthwards thank you.

Sorry if I've offended anyone - the language I used is that used in law and by the courts around adoption without consent. I'm not suggesting that is the wrong choice for children who have been abused or neglect, it is often the right choice but that is the legal view. What it means is that is represents the most powerful intervention the state can make in the life of an individual and is (rightly) seen to be an absolute last resort. So I'm not intending to be insensitive in my phrasing especially on this board. The OP needs factual view of how their situation will be viewed by the court and I am able to give it. The rights and wrongs of severing that birth link are certainly not something I would look to debate here. Just to say I deal with these issues every day and I absolutely understand how very painful they are for everyone involved.

OP you really need to get some legal advice on your position. As others have said your LA should fund some but this will be limited. If I were you I would have that and then see if you feel well informed enough, if not then get some more advice which you fund yourself. Good luck - you're doing an amazing thing.

@wherethewildthingis personally, I am not offended. I am just a bit baffled. It is helpful to know legal terms and to know how people are talking about things.

If the law uses the term 'Draconian' and that means 'of laws or their application' "excessively harsh and severe" for adoption, then I would argue that the individual situation does really determine whether or not the application of that law is actually 'excessively harsh'.

If a child is being offered a new life with parent/s who will care for them well, when birth parents simply cannot care for them at all, then I would say the application of that law is not "excessively harsh".

The point about adoption, not for the OP who may adopt/SGO/foster a blood relative, is that for those of us who adopt a non-relative, is that the law enables us to take a person who is not our relative and make them so. It allows a child who is not being cared for/being cared for in foster care, to be legally a member of a new family.

No one denies that this causes sadness and pain, to some degree for all, but that as a last result for that child, it is the best of all options. How can the law describe the best of all options as 'excessively harsh'. It just doesn't make sense to me.

And for me if my son will no longer see his birth parents until he is an adult or almost an adult, and if that is best for him, why would that be different simply because I might be related to him by blood?

As i said I can see for Grandparent care that an SGO makes a lot of sense, because that Grandparent will continue to be the parent of the child's parent. In some cases they may be required not to see their own child, in others maybe not.

So I really hope whatever happens in the life of this child that the best option will be found for the child and I wish the OP all the very best of luck.

Not offended at all, just like to emphasise the positives. I think the adoption board benefits from some legal expertise. Are you involved in adoption law @wherethewildthingis?

I think italian is right that it's an interesting choice of language. Draconian does carry the idea of excess, even injustice; but I suppose it doesn't need to mean that- it can just be a synonym for harsh.

I'm a child protection social worker. More than happy to discuss the legal aspects but perhaps not on this thread or board any more - I realise its distressing to some posters here. I just want the OP here to understand their position and the options open to them.

I just want the OP here to understand their position and the options open to them.

Quite rightly so. I really don't think anyone is distressed, just challenging the language a little. I think that discussion of the legal position is very relevant.

Do you think adoption is completely out then? I appreciate SGO is the norm, but I thought I'd heard of cases where a family member has adopted- though the only one I am familiar with both geographically and biologically more distant.

@donquixotedelamancha

"... I really don't think anyone is distressed, just challenging the language a little."

Agree.

"Do you think adoption is completely out then?"

Presumably, it is really what is best for the child. Is there a chance the birth parents would agree to adoption? Not even sure if that would be best, to be honest.

www.gov.uk/looking-after-someone-elses-child

Really hope it works out well for you, OP and this child.

(I didnt find the language offensive - and saw it as the language used by law....)

its very interesting....hopefully OP is finding it helpful

If people are interested there are two key rulings about adoption, Re-B and Re-BS. Both set out the position that adoption without consent is only legal when all other options have been explored, and "nothing else will do." that it because of the impact on the child of severing the link to birth family, and also that it deprives parents of their PR and any prospect of a relationship with the child - that is where the Draconian aspect comes into it.
The law recognises it is right for some children but it is an absolute last resort. Most local authorities will only apply for a placement order once both parents and any family/friend option has been ruled out If there is any other option available it would be unlawful to make a placement order and this would be open for appeal.

@wherethewildthingis. I'm familiar with those cases, and the effect they've had on rates of adoption; but while they have meant that LAs look to SGOs more, they don't alter the fundamental legal framework, do they?

If there is any other option available it would be unlawful to make a placement order and this would be open for appeal.

Has there ever been a successful appeal (after placement) under the current framework?

Surely, in principle, an application for an adoption by family members who have parented a child for some time would be considered on its merits? Does anyone know of any similar, close family, cases?

Am I right in thinking what you are saying is that the LA is very unlikely to pursue adoption over SGO for a family relationship, without some unusual and overriding reason?

I should note that I am not trying to dispute wherethewildthingis' point- just interested in the details. I agree that with what little we know SGO seem vastly more likely and I have no reason to suggest otherwise.

Lastly I think it worth saying that whatever the piece of paper, parents are parents. What @primaryteacher90 is doing is fab and the challenge will be the parenting, the legal stuff will sort itself out in the end.

donquixote you're right to say that the legal framework itself hasn't changed. But those judgements established a very very high threshold test for adoption which has effectively changed the framework. Where previously adoption sat on a more equal footing with other options, and could be argued on the basis of being in the child's best interests, now you can only put forward adoption as care plan if there are no other viable options. It is the case that an LA would never put forward a plan of adoption if an SGO was available. As to whether a family member could apply to adopt, yes this would be considered on its merits but would still need to pass that threshold test. And it would fail the test - "nothing else will do" - because the child would already have a good, stable permanent option without needing to deprive them of the parental link. So I very much doubt that an adoption would be made in those circumstances.

There have been successful appeals after placement, yes, although that is very rare. I will try to find and link one

www.scottishlegal.com/2017/03/14/mother-wins-appeal-challenging-adoption-order/

@wherethewildthingis. Thanks, that's very interesting.