Skip to main content

New Stats show that over 60% of toddlers in care get adopted

New Statistics obtained from DCFS (erstwhile DfES) and released by John Hemming MP, Chairman of Justice for Families show that 60% of the numbers of children under 5 taken into care are now adopted."

The system", he said, "is supposed to try to reunite families rather than simply drive towards adoption. However, in 2006 4,160 children under 5 were taken into care and 2,490 were adopted. There will be a small number that have not been adopted at that time and remain in care for a while. That means that the 60% figure is in fact an under estimate rather than an over estimate as the lag is in the numbers adopted."

"Looking at individual cases," he said, "it is clear that the government's forced adoption machine is substantially a one way conveyor belt. We know of a number of miscarriages of justice like the Webster Case in Norfolk where children are wrongly taken off their parents. With these figures it is not surprising that children are taken into care because of the demand for young children to adopt. The comparable figures for 1995 were 910 children adopted and 2870 taken into care. This gives an adoption ratio of 32%.

"The error the government have made," he said, "was to look at the proportion of children in care at any one time that get adopted. There are two problems with this. Firstly, children that are taken into care do not get adopted (and should not get adopted) that quickly when the parents are fighting to keep them. Secondly, there are larger numbers of chidren that it is very difficult to get adopted and adoptions normally fail with older children so it is an error to attempt to force adoptions of 10 year olds."

"It has taken me a few months to get figures from the DfES as to how many children are actually taken into care (the flows) rather than numbers that are actually in care. However, I have now got figures for 1995 and 2006. The really disturbing trend is in the large numbers of newborn babies taken into care. I am aware of cases where babies are put in care because their mothers might get post natal depression. This is simply an evil way of working. We do need to think first of the children and their wider families rather than responding to the government's demand for more and more adoptions. England and Wales (and probably Northern Ireland, but not Scotland) have struck out in a way which is alien to human nature. This needs to come to an end."

"I regret the government's decision to increase the secrecy in the Family Courts. These statistics and the reported cases clearly demonstrate the need for more scrutiny rather than less."


Note for Editors:
"In care" means that there is a care order of some form. This can be a police protection order, Emergency Protection Order, Interim Care Order or a Full Care Order. Normally a case will start with one and then end up with a care order under S31 of the 1989 Childrens Act. This is to be distinguished from those cases where Section 20 of the 1989 Act is used for a "looked after child". These are voluntary rather than compulsory.

The raw statistics are available at:
The source of the statistics quoted in this release is the DfES. (now DCFS)


Simon Bell said…

I heard you on the radio the other day discussing the topic of increased adoption. (Must have been the Today program but I can't find it on the BBC site).

I was adopted in 1967, from birth, and am currently tracing my birth mother. I have learnt much about the adoption industry, and of the anonymity and secrecy involved, and of coercion and regret. I have also learnt of the physiological and psychological impact of infant separation - there is a great deal more than breastfeeding to this subject.

This trend of supplying the infertile with infants thought to be in danger must be reversed. Help needs to be directed towards the birth parents so they can learn to parent effectively. And the family courts need to be opened.

Glad you're making some noise about it.
John Hemming said…
It is a very complex issue that doesn't handle well in soundbites.

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re False Allegations Campaign

Many people will know that my family and I have been subject to a campaign of false allegations by Esther Baker for the past 4 1/2 years. Yesterday there was a court judgment Baker v Hemming [2019] EWHC 2950 (QB) which formally confirmed that the allegations were false. Esther Baker, who had brought a libel claim against me, dropped her defence of Truth to my counter-claim and was taken by the judge as no longer trying to prove her allegations. Due to Baker's various breaches of court rules and orders, she has been barred from further repeating her allegations even in the court proceedings. Further claim of mine in libel against Baker are ongoing. There is a good summary in the Daily Mail here.

This demonstrates the challenge in fighting false allegations in today's Britain. A substantial campaign was built up to promote allegations which had no substance to them. Various Labour MPs and in pa…

Problems with Outlook Express - emails lost dbx corruption

In the light of the enthusiasm shown for my post relating to the OCX control that must not be named (and probably Microsoft's most embarrassing error of recent years) I thought I would write someting about Outlook Express.

Outlook Express is the email client that comes as part of windows. I use it myself, although I have my emails filtered through a spam filter of my own devising written in java. It takes email off a number of servers using POP3 (Post Office Protocol TCP Port 110) and sends it using SMTP (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol port 25).

I have recently spent a few hours dealing with the problem that arises when .dbx files get corrupted during compacting.

Outlook Express (OE) stores the emails (and other things) in files with the suffix .dbx. Each folder has its own .dbx file. They are stored in hidden directories. This makes it harder to deal with things when OE goes wrong.

It is very important to back up your stored *.dbx files as otherwise if you have a disk crash/stol…

Standards Board and Ken Livingstone

The link is to the case where Ken Livingstone appealed the decision of the Adjudication Panel for England.

The Standards Board and associated Adjudication Panel have done a lot of damage to democracy in the UK. The courts are, however, bringing them into more sanity.

The point about Ken Livingstone's case is that it was high profile and he also could afford to appeal. The Standard Board has a problem in that those subject to its enquiries face substantial costs that they cannot claim back.

This is an issue that needs further work.

In essence the Judge found that what he said brought him into disrepute, but not the office of Mayor. We do need the machinery of the SBE and APE to concentrate on things that matter rather than people being rude to each other.