Skip to main content

Enhancing Adoptive Parenting

The link is to a summary of the research on adoptive parenting performed by Alan Rushton and Elizabeth Monck.

It is also possible to order the more detailed research book from BAAF amongst other routes. During the quiet period of Christmas I have read the book.

The book itself looks at the question as to whether a specific form of advice for adoptive parents is of any substantial benefit. What is, however, important about the book is not just that question, but other aspects.

Social Care is an area which has very few randomised trials. What that means is you cannot really be certain as to whether the approaches taken in individual cases are one which one would expect to reliably produce positive results.

It is reasonably well known that adopting a child from care is more difficult than adopting a child from birth. Often the parents feel abandoned by the system and a very large proportion of adoptions from care break down at some stage with the child returning to care.

There has been a debate in Social work about the use of Randomised Control Trials. My personal view is in accordance with the authors who say on Page 20 "It is unethical to offer or impose a service that is ineffectual, and is wasteful of scarce resources to do so without seeking alternative approaches. An ethical approach requires that any intervention if properly and independently evaluated."

The report's main conclusions were that although the parenting advice made the parents happier the "advice did not prove more effective in reducing the children's psychosocial problems within the timescale of [the] evaluation" (p6)

However, hidden within the book on page 72 is an important conclusion. The study looked particularly at children who had behavioural problems based on an SDQ questionnaire and then looked at the records of the treatment of the children prior to them coming into the care system. On P72 it concludes:
"These data suggest that the experiences associated with coming into care and while in the care system may be more influential that experiences before coming into care in determining children's behaviour in the first few months [21 months] of an adoptive placement. However, it is important to note that the question of the children's resilience was not investigated; it is a complex issue and perhaps not surprisingly was not systematically commented on in the case notes. It may well be that the lack of significant differences between high and low-scoring children in their pre-care circumstances is in part affected by differential resilience. However, to set against that, it does appear that the subsequenct in-care experiences have an effect on the SDQ score shortly after placement. It would be necessary therefore to posit that high resilience to pre-care expereiences did not carry over into effective resilience to events during the children's time in care."

One area I have been concerned about beyond that of miscarriages of justice is that it appears to me that substantial damage is done to many (but not all) children by the way that the care system operates. Note in this that I am concerned about the systematic aspects. There is good care and you can have excellent foster carers constrained by the way the system responds in individual cases.

I have raised hackles by stating that some damage is done in the care system. We now have, however, two sources of good research about the comparative impact of damage done during children's time in care and that which occurs prior to being taken into care.

The other research is that of Mike Rutter which indicated that in terms of the Romanian orphanages the bad treatment (the lack of love) of the babies had more long lasting effects from age 6 months to 18 months in comparison to the first half year.

When you put this together with the statistics for the 6,000 children taken into care in 2006 (April 2005-March 2006) 1,710 were taken into care by 6 months, 1,000 from 7-24 months and 3,250 from 2+. (All figures for England source DCSF)

What these two pieces of reliable research point to is that for a material number of children it is likely that their problems when it comes to the disruption of an adoptive placement are caused by their experiences in care.

This has to be placed against the marginal justifications used for taking some babies into care. Many cases are based upon the mother needing therapy. Some are because the mother is a victim of domestic violence. I have even seen one based in part upon the mother breast feeding a new born on demand rather than having a routine for feeding. The evidence is that a proportion of these children will end up having serious behavioural problems and that the cause of that will be primarily their treatment in care rather than their care prior to being taken into care.

I spoke recently to the ministers responsible for this mess. They said that it should be about the children. I agree with them that it should be about the children. It is quite clear what is being done is systematically damaging to many children.

Comments

moira said…
One of the problems is social workers unaccountability. The LGO and GSCC are useless. My complaint was upheld and we were due an apology and small compensation a year ago which is not forthcoming as SS don't care.This is 5 years later.SWs still have jobs and manager said she would treat others the same as me.
I needed respite for 2 weeks.Due to corrupt sws I was put through care proceedings and sws lied to make a case to cover their illegal removal of child.
They wrote and said my parenting was of high standard when care proceedings were finished 2 months later.Me and my child were both seriously damaged. My son having separation anxiety for 2 years.Of course ss are no where to be found when they have damaged a child.
Meanwhile there is an alarming assumption made that anything a social worker does is in the child's best interests. Or done out of a sincerity to help.
With so many unaccountable and incompetent sws in the system there are an element of control freaks who hate parents and if you happen to be one of those unfortunate parents who is on the end of their irrational dislike,you can end up losing your child.
This was confirmed by a legal person who told me its often down to whether the sw likes you as to if they keep your family together. If sws are guilty of serious misconduct they should be struck off for life but the gscc are protecting most sws instead probably due to government pressure to hide the terrible state the care system is in.

A child can be damaged by just going into care for 2 months.

Popular posts from this blog

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.


I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…

Gender Issues comparison of candidates

John Hemming believes that an MP should represent everyone in their constituency.  This should be regardless of their race, religion, gender, abledness, sexual orientation or anything else.  It should be everyone.

When he was an MP he worked on issues relating to men, those relating to women and those relating to non-binary people. Everyone.

For example here is John Hemming on a demonstration outside the courts with the campaign group Women Against Rape (it related to the case of a mother who had her child removed from her because the mother was raped).




Jess Phillips, who campaigns on women's issues, notwithstanding the questions asked about her appointments in her parliamentary office, had the following response when asked for a debate on issues specifically relating to men:

The Labour Candidate's Book Promotion Tour and Why It Matters

In the 2015 General Election the Labour Candidate criticised John Hemming for having an external interest and made a pledge that she would be a "Full Time MP for Yardley and my only other job will be mom & carer ...".  Here is a copy of that pledge:


Since that point she has been working on paid Television Programmes and has also written a book. John Hemming has made no secret of the fact that he chairs the board of the company he founded in 1983. This involves one meeting a month. When he was the MP for Yardley he was a full time MP and the Job of being MP for Yardley came first. The Labour candidate has reported 1,274 hours of work other than being an MP in the two years she has been elected and her income in the last year was over £131,000.

Ignoring the question as to how she reconciles that with her "pledge" the question is raised as to what extent her external activity conflicts with the role of Member of Parliament for Yardley. She is supposed to de…