Skip to main content

The Transparency Project and Adoption Targets

The Transparency Project have today produced a blog English councils confirm they set targets for the number of children to be adopted . That in itself is not news. Councils have prioritised adoption for many many years. What is new is that they recognise that when I say rather than being used to get children out of the care system, such ‘targets’ instead risk impacting on decision making at the stage where people are deciding if children should enter the care system i.e. when a decision is made to apply to the courts for a care order, and whether they should be adopted as opposed to some other care arrangement being chosen. I may be right.

I would like to thank them for this. BASW warned that the effect of adoption targets would be to stop children being with their birth families. That warning was ignored by government. I have seen a number of cases where local authorities have delayed telling pregnant mothers of their intentions until after the date for a legal termination. Many mothers have decided they prefer a termination to care proceedings. I have even had a case referred to me where a woman with learning difficulties was reportedly encouraged to get pregnant. The local authority, of course, would plan for her child to be adopted.

There is, however, a bit of confusion on their blog about the issue of adoption of babies. Many of the children taken into care compulsorily spend some time in care. Hence if a baby is removed in care proceedings it is likely that the baby will be over 1 before being adopted. I ask the government to produce figures on movements in and out of care. In this case it also includes Section 20 although ideally I would exclude S20.

In the year to March 31st 2016 90 children looked after aged under 1 ceased to be looked after through an unopposed adoption. 80 children aged under 1 ceased through an opposed adoption. One would assume that the 90 are babies essentially voluntarily given up by their mothers. It is statistically the right order of magnitude. However, even including S20 5,530 children aged 1-4 ceased to be looked after. Of those 1,650 were adopted without opposition and 1,660 were forced adoptions (consent dispensed with). 810 returned home to live with parents or relatives of which 670 returned to their parents). 1,170 had either SGOs or residency orders.

That, of course, is a very high percentage for the traditional measure of "permanence" (81%) and about 60% to adoption. I would congratulate the transparency project on finding the national adoption percentage performance management framework. I didn't find that myself although I didn't try that hard as it was obvious what was going on given the ministerial letters etc. I obtained the detailed records for Merton because I put that to the Supreme Court who refused permission to appeal (on a case involving a Latvian mother) arguing that independent experts were not necessary.

Interestingly the new performance management look at the proportion adopted as a proportion of those ceasing to be looked after. That, of course, includes:
a) Children in care under S20
b) Teenagers whose parents cannot cope with them
c) Teenagers who become 18.

Hence the percentages look lowish, but are misleading. If I had the energy I would try to get the department to sub analyse the information they have sent me separating out S20 from children in care. In terms of definitions children "in care" are those who are compulsorily in care. When you add those on S20 to those in care you get children "looked after". However, I have other things to do, the department are difficult about FOI requests and it does not make any material difference although it does improve the accuracy of the information

Comments

hi me have same problem with soshol worker hi wont may child do for adoption you can help
John Hemming said…
Best to email me at john@hemming.email

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

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…