OK - firstly I think you both need to be absolutely certain that this is the right thing to do, for all of the family. Assume you have kids of your own. You need to think about how they will react to this new baby, especially your youngest child, who will lose his/her place as the youngest child.
Every child that is "looked after" by the LA has to have a care plan, which sets out what the LA intend to do with the child if the court makes an Order. Obviously care plans will differ depending on individual circumstances. IF the child is not to be returned to the bm, they have a duty to find out if there is anyone in the extended family who is willing and suitable to care for the child. That's covered because you have already contacted the LA socwrkrs expressing your interest.
IF there was no-one in the extended family, the care plan for a new born would definitely be adoption. He would be placed with fc's first and then "matched" with one of the many families wanting to adopt a new born. This care plan would be exactly right as any child needs to be given the opportunity of permanence and stability. Sadly there are very few people wanting to adopt an older child (over 5 approx) a sibling group or a child with disabilities, and so the care plan for these children may be adoption but with the LA knowing that was hardly likely to happen, so they would then look for permanent foster carers - they are equally thin on the ground sadly so many of these children get passed around short term foster carers.
SO the LA will not want to place the baby with you on the basis of permanent fostering, as that would mean the baby was in the care of the LAfor his entire childhood. Hence they will be looking to place him (if you are suitable) on the basis (as already stated) of a Residence Order, Special Guardianship Order or adoption.
Here are the differences
- RO - social workers like to place children with relatives on this basis because it is less work for them (in terms of assessments an reports) and they do not pay any allowance and the relative is "off the books" - closed case for LA. Relatives are left to sort out any issues about contact with birthfamily and this can sometimes be difficult. The parental responsibility (PR) is shared between the relative and the bm, but the relative is in the "driving seat" in the sense that they can make all day to day decisions. However the bm can return to court at any time to ask for the child to be returned - not saying this the child will be returned (most unlikely) but the fact remains that the law allows them to do this.
The other thing is that sws often don't explain exactly what a RO is and the implications for the relatives. They also don't always explain that they cannot make the application, you have to make the application to the court. This doesn't mean that you have to fill in forms and go to court on your own or anything like that. The important point is that I have known many relatives who have ROs who had no idea that the LA could not make the order, if you see what I mean. SO make sure that you remember that the LA cannot apply for the order themselves. Only you can do that, and they will do all the paperwork and support your application.
- Adoption. Again this would have to be your application, and the LA may well support you, but with relatives it is usually thought better not to apply for adoption because the child will grow up in the family, knowing who his relatives are (including bm) whereas in a "normal" adoption case, the child grows up not knowing who his bm is, though all adoptors have to agree to tell the child as soon as possible that he is adopted, and create life story books, with pictures of the birth parents, grandparents etc. Also there can be indirect contact by sending annual photos via social services to the bm. The sending of photos and letters very much depends of the adoptors of course. BUT it is essential that the child knows his origins because many years ago, this was all kept secret and then someone in the playground would tell the child his mother was "not his real mother" and you can imagine the trauma that this caused to the child and adoptors.
Adoption allowances can be paid but they are discretionary and so can be decreased or stopped altogether at any time. The law says adoptors should have post-adoption support but because the of the huge shortages of staff in SSDs this rarely happens.
- SGO - this is relatively new legislation - Jan 2006. The benefits of this order are
a) When an SGO is granted to a relative on behalf of the child, the relative has PR almost in entirety. There are only 3 things that the SGO "holder" cannot do and that is i) Change the baby's surname ii) take him out of the country for longer than 3 months and iii) apply for an adoption order. Though they can do any of these things if the bm gives consent.
b) The assessment for the SGO is very comprehensive and sws have to follow a set procedure to present to the court. Also they have to carry out an asessment of your needs with relation to any equipment you may need, and any payments, or support in any other area. Judges will not hear cases for SGOs unless this assessment has also been carried out.
c)The bm cannot just apply to have the child back, like they can with a RO. In SGO cases, the bm has to get leave of the court to apply. This means that the judge has to be satisfied that there has been a marked change in the circumstances of the bm/bf since the SGO was made. If he/she is not convinced that this is the case, they will not allow a hearing to take place.
Also of course, the longer the child has been with you and settled, this would in the vast majority of cases mean that it would not be in the best interests of the child to return him to the bm even if she had given up drugs/drink whatever.
d) Contact is a tricky issue, and in the SGO report there is a section about contact and the assessor has to interview the bparents about their views on contact, and yourselves. It doesn't mean that the bps make any decisions about contact, it is just to get their views. Contact in SGOs (or in any case for that matter) the contact has to be in the best interests of the child, not the bm or relatives, though of course your views will be taken into account.
The only way (in my opinion and I have done dozens of SGO assessments) that the child (and baby in your case) needs to have contact (not alone of course - supervised by yourselves) is so that he grows up knowing the identity of his bm, rather than finding out when he is older. This is especially so in relative cases, as there will be times when you will be altogether as a family and it could all get very odd if when the baby grows up, some woman is telling him that she is his "real mummy"
Judges will always want some sort of direct contact between mb and child, though again dependent on circumstances. Most social workers recommend quarterly contact for a couple of hours, or every 2 months. I always prefer it if this can take place in the relative's homes as it is much better for the child and he is in a familiar place and "birthmum" could be just like a friend visiting. I do appreciate however that not everyone is comfortable with this, and contact can take place in a soft play place, or Pizza Hut etc., away from the home.
e) There is no mandatory allowance with an SGO and most LAs I believe are paying SGO "holders" an allowance for the first 2 years after placement. However there is also a clause in the SGO Regulations that "no placement should break down because of lack of finance" and that is important. I don't know how important finance is to you. You can have your own legal representation in court (but would have to pay if you are not entitled to legal aid) and very soon the Govt is stopping legal aid being made available in private law cases (which yours is) It isn't really necessary in my view but some relatives in your position will consult a solicitor.
You cannot aply for an SGO unless the LA supports this. They cannot really say they are not supporting it because they think a RO is better (although they might try this on) for reasons given earlier,, as that makes no sense, and I think if they did say this, you would need to consult a solicitor. The only reason would be less work for them - many sws have never done an SGO assessment (I did them on a freelance basis for a large inner city LA) as they did not have the time or the expertise in many cases. I haven't worked in this capcity for the past 5 years, so hopefully things will have changed and support for SGOs is given more readily.
Think that's it - but if I think of anything else I will post again.
If an SGO is granted your case will be closed and you will be "off the books" so will still be left to sort things out for yourself and contact is the usual problem, so you need to make sure that the details for contact are absolutely clear in the report.
Also you would benefit from going on the "British Agencies for Fostering & Adoption (BAAF) or Adoption UK or "Fostering network sites." You could also google ROs and SGOs. The sw should be able to explain all these differing routes to permanency but they often don't, although they do have to state in their reports why they are suporting yr aplication and why they think this is the most suitable plan for the child's best interests. I always said that the SGO offered the child a greater sense of security for the child than a RO and adoption might be difficult because of the reasons I have already outlined.
Happy to help further if necessary and you can PM me if you like.