The Modernisation Programme

Adoption Conference 2013
Plymouth University

The Modernisation
Programme in Plymouth
Torbay and West Devon
by
Her Honour Judge Robertshaw
Designated Family Judge for Plymouth
Torbay and West Devon

What I will cover
 Public law (mostly).
 Private law – separate power point : not for
today – some matters of practice and procedure
cover both

The past
 Family Justice review – 3.11.2011.
 Government response – 6.2.2012.
 Ryder proposals – 31.7.2012.

The Law Society – what it said
‘The family justice system is failing families.
Notwithstanding the expertise and dedication of those
working within it, the system is flawed’.

The Family Bar – what it said
We accept that the delays in resolving disputes concerning
children in the courts are ‘shocking’ and are pleased that
the Panel has not pulled its punches in describing the
failure of the ‘system’ as ‘little short of scandalous’. Only
through facing up to the problems in this way will
attention be paid to the problems’.

The Family Justice Review
We found a family justice system facing immense stresses and
difficulties. Some apply only in public law or private law and are
considered in those sections. Other issues are wider and highlight
difficulty in the way the system operates more generally. …At the
time of publication of the interim report in March, the average
care and supervision case took 53 weeks: 57 weeks in care centres
and 46 weeks in the Family Proceedings Courts. This has since
increased to 56 weeks on average: 61 weeks in the care centres
and 48 weeks in the Family Proceedings Courts. To take on
average more than a year to deal with these cases is unacceptable.

The Government Response
 The Government’s response to the Family Justice Review-
A System with children and families at its heart’.
 Paragraph three of that report states: ‗We are very
pleased to be able to accept the overwhelming majority of
the recommendations which the Panel made. Annex 1
sets out the response to each individual recommendation,
our rationale for doing so, and the detailed changes we
will make’.

Ryder LJ
‘ It is not the judiciary’s purpose to undertake a reform programme for
Government. My proposals for change are the judiciary’s and are
independent of Government. In coming to my conclusions, however, it has
neither been possible nor sensible to ignore the Government’s legislative
programme and I acknowledge the cross party consensus for change in
support of the Family Justice Review’s conclusions. The judicial
modernisation programme is a plan which is designed to ensure that there is
a robust framework in place to give effect to both the judiciary’s proposals
and legislative change. To that end, there have been extensive and careful
discussions between the judiciary and Government departments and agencies
during the development of the programme which reflect the distinct roles of the
Executive and the judiciary. The process itself, together with the essential
checks and balances which have been developed, is worthy of note’

Volume – by reference to Cafcass
national figures.
 Cafcass received 908 applications in April 2013.
That is 20% more than in April 2012.
 Between April 2012 and March 2013 Cafcass
received a total of 11,064 applications. That is
8% higher than in 2011-2012.
 The figure for 2011-12 was itself 11% higher
than the previous year (2010-2011).

The future
 The creation of a Family Court.
 A new PLO – from Rules introduced under Part
36 of The Family Procedure Rules 2010.
 Implementation of the statutory changes to
substantive and procedural law by reason of The
Children and Families Bill.

We must make it work
 Should courts remain involved?
 Yes – but we have to demonstrate that we can
implement the requirements of the
modernisation plan.
 Those requirements are the law – created by
statute, statutory instrument and President‘s
guidance.

The present
 Do it now.
 In particular, operate as though care and supervision
order proceedings should be resolved in 26 weeks,
unless there are good reasons to the contrary.
 Many of the practices referred to later in relation to the
new PLO are already in place – they can and must be
followed.

26 weeks – The President’s view
 ‘A comparatively small number of exceptional cases apart, we can
and must meet the 26 week limit. We can, because various pilots
and initiatives are not merely showing us that it can be done but,
even more important, showing us how it can be done. We must,
because if we do not, government and society will finally lose
patience with us. I believe it can be done and I am determined to
do everything in my power to make sure that it is. My message is
clear and uncompromising: this deadline can be met, it must be
met, it will be met. And remember, 26 weeks is a deadline, not a
target; it is a maximum, not an average or a mean. So many
cases will need to be finished in less than 26 weeks’.

The President’s view (cont)
 I have focussed on two key reforms: the 26 week limit and the
new approach to expert evidence. Let me absolutely clear: I do
not accept that either of these reforms, in my view essential
reforms, will prejudice the quality of justice or the interests of
those who appear before us.
 For those of you who are sceptical, remember that the architects
of the Children Act 1989, and they were not fools or
dreamers, thought that care cases would – should – take no
longer than 12 weeks.

The future – The Family Court [1]
 The new family court will be set up by The
Crime and Courts [Bill].
 It will come into being on 1st April 2014.
 The President has said that all areas should
operate as though the court was in existence by
the end of December 2013, at the latest.

The Family Court [2]. Statutory
creation.
 Clause 17(3) of the Bill proposes an amendment to the
Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 in the
following terms:
 ―Part 4A - The family court
31A Establishment of the family court
 There is to be a court in England and Wales, called the family
court, for the purpose of exercising the jurisdiction and
powers conferred on it—
by or under this or any other Act, or
by or under any Act, or Measure, of the National
Assembly for Wales.
 The family court is to be a court of record and have a seal.‖

Family court [3] -Core features
 Single unified court.
 The FPC will be abolished and family
magistrates will sit in the Family Court.
 First instance judges of all levels will also sit in
it.
 The High Court will have some reserved
jurisdiction, which will continue in the High
Court and not the Family Court (some inherent
jurisdiction cases).

Family Court [4]
 Regions are divided by DFJ areas.
 Each area will have one DFC – Designated
Family Centre.
 The DFJ has overall leadership responsibility
 The FDLJ, Baker J, has circuit responsibility and
The President, Sir James Munby, is in overall
charge.

The Family Court in Plymouth
Torbay and West Devon area
 It is intended that there should be unified
administration based on the DFC – Plymouth
 Allocation and listing
 DFJs must set out proposals for structure of
Family Court in their area by beginning of June
2013

The new PLO
 To be introduced under Part 36.
 Based on resolution of care and supervision
cases within 26 weeks.
 To be published this month (May).
 In force on 1st July.
 We should not delay its implementation – but
do not be unduly critical of Local Authorities if
their paperwork does not comply immediately.

Key components of new PLO
 Similar documentation has to be filed on issue.
 Includes, ‗on day 1‘, Local Authority chronology,
threshold document, care plan, genogram, current
assessments and statement.
 Chronology – onerous. Two years information usually
sufficient? Succinct.
 Threshold – succinct (e.g. the father is a man of violent
disposition who regularly assaults the mother in the
presence of the children‘). Statement – analytical rather
than reams of information.

PLO (cont)
 Procedure is more front loaded and streamlined.
 For Plymouth, Torbay and West Devon - pre
proceedings protocol
 Covers whole of County of Devon. Based on
agreement between Local Authorities
(Plymouth, Torbay and Devon) and court. It
imposes expectations on both. In particular no
unnecessary duplication of pre proceedings
work.

View from the President [2]
 Current thinking is that the FCMH should be on
day 12.
 Local Authority compliance with its obligations is
essential: ‗The key principle is very simple: the local
authority must deliver its material – the right kind of
material – on Day 1. If that does not happen, the entire
timetable will be thrown out’.

 On Day 2 the local authority must serve on the other
parties (but must not file with the court unless expressly
directed to do so) the ‗checklist documents‘. These are:
 Evidential and other documents which already exist on
the local authority‘s files (for example, previous court
orders and judgments / reasons, any relevant
assessments, including section 7 or section 37 reports,
and single, joint or inter-agency reports, such as health,
education, Home Office, UKBA and Immigration
Tribunal documents). These documents are to be
served with the application form.

 A list of decision making records (for example, records
of key discussions with the family, key local authority
minutes and records, pre-existing care plans and letters
before proceedings). These documents are to be
indentified by list, not served, but must be disclosed on
request by any party.
 It is important to note that documents need not be
served or listed if they are older than two years before
issue of the proceedings unless reliance is placed on
them in the local authority‘s evidence.

 We must get away from existing practice. All too often, and
partly as a result of previous initiatives, local authorities are filing
enormously voluminous materials, which – and this is not their
fault – are not merely far too long; too often they are narrative
and historical, rather than analytical. I repeat what I have
previously said. I want to send out a clear message: local authority
materials can be much shorter than hitherto, and they should be
more focused on analysis than on history and narrative.
 In short, the local authority materials must be succinct and
analytical. But they must also of course be evidence based.

 One of the problems is that in recent years too many social workers
have come to feel undervalued, disempowered and de-skilled. In part at
least this is an unhappy consequence of the way in which care
proceedings have come to be dealt with by the courts. If the revised
PLO is properly implemented one of its outcomes will, I hope, be to re-
position social workers as trusted professionals playing the central role
in care proceedings which too often of late has been overshadowed by
our unnecessary use of and reliance upon other experts.
 Social workers may not be experts for the purposes of Part 25 of the
Family Procedure Rules 2010, but that does not mean that they are
not experts in every other sense of the word. They are, and we must
recognise them and treat them as such.

Allocation
 Correct allocation from the start is vital.
 Members of allocation team based at Plymouth will
meet at least weekly and will communicate daily.
 For Plymouth, DFC allocation team will be DJ
Richards and Tony Barry (legal adviser) assisted as
necessary by DJ Taylor. DFJ has oversight and will be
available to advise and assist as necessary.
 The team as a whole (including DFJ) will meet
monthly.
 Appeals to DFJ but hardly likely to arise.

Allocation criteria
 These have been produced in draft and will be
issued soon.
 Intention is that the magistrates will play a ‗key
role‘ in private law and public law.
 No national percentage for amount of public
law magistrates will do – but they will do a
significant amount of the work.
 They must be supported and helped by lawyers
and judges.

 I do not accept, I have never accepted, that Magistrates are unsuited for
family work or, in particular, for public law cases. Quite the contrary. So
Magistrates will play a vitally important part as judges in the Family Court.
And I must make clear that there is no agenda that Magistrates should in
future concentrate only on private law cases. Given the great discrepancies at
present in the balance of public and private law work being done by different
Family Proceedings Courts, there is likely over time to be a rebalancing in
some places between the two kinds of cases. But Magistrates are going to
continue doing significant amounts of public law work’.
 The legal advisers (justices’ clerks) will have a pivotal role to play as
members of the ‘gate-keeping and allocation team’ in the Family Court.’

PLO (cont)
 Strong emphasis on First Case Management Hearing -
‗FCMH‘ (currently first directions appointment).
 Deal then with directions but especially:
 Experts, applying Part 25 rigorously. Applies now.
 Setting the timetable, including the dates for the final
hearing and IRH/Final hearing. Applies now.
 All directions should be given with a view to achieving
that resolution of the case within 26 weeks, save in
exceptional cases. Applies now.

26 weeks
 Not optional.
 The result of much debate. That debate is now
over.
 26 weeks is a must and a maximum.
 We must treat it as an operational requirement
that is already in force.

DFJ view
 It is in the interests of children that public
law cases be resolved in no more than 26
weeks, in all but truly exceptional
circumstances. There is now a very strong
body of research about the consequences of
delay on the emotional and psychological
development of children (and also on the
physiological development of the brain).
Efficiency and the welfare of children are
linked, not opposed, concepts.

CMS
 That is an acronym for The Care Monitoring
System.
 Has been amended as from the beginning of April.
 Monitors how each public law case is progressing
through the courts. It also monitors how each
individual judge and magistrates‘ court is
functioning and how DFJ areas are functioning.

CMS
 The results that it reveals are scrutinised and distributed.
 The court through the judiciary is responsible for the data that is
to be recorded on that system. Although the loading of
information on to the system is actually done by court staff, it is
for judges, magistrates and legal advisers to make sure that the
information is correct (in particular, that the right reasons are
recorded for any delay).
 All judges need to make sure that the right information is
recorded on it.

Getting dates from the court office
 This is the responsibility of the court. It should not be left to the
parties unless unavoidable.
 If left to the parties – one solicitor / barrister nominated to
make collective enquiry.
 Dates must be fixed before parties leave the court.
 The court office will reject calls from solicitors / clerks made to
arrange or alter listing, unless the judge / court has authorised
this.
 Applies now.

Self reporting
 As from now.
 ‗In the event that any party shall fail to take any
step by the time specified in this order, the legal
representative of that party (or, where
applicable, the litigant in person concerned)
must notify the court by email forthwith upon
that default occurring and the default will be
brought to the attention of the judge / court‘.

E-Filing of orders (applies now)
 Unless otherwise ordered, orders must be e-filed
with 48 hours of the hearing.
 If more time is needed, it should be requested
either at the hearing or within the 48 hour
period.
 If default is made, the party in default will be
called to court to give an explanation.

Rules about experts
 New rules in force since 31st January 2013.
 Introduced by The Family Procedure (Amendment) (No. 5)
Rules 2012 (SI 2012/3061).
 Over-riding objective in Part 1 amended to include ‗controlling
the use of expert evidence‘.
 Part 25 amended. Main change – expert evidence to be limited to
that which is ‗necessary‘.
 Court of Appeal due to issue guidance.

TG (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 5
‘It is a matter for another day to determine what
exactly is meant in this context by the word
―necessary‖, but clearly the new test is intended
to be significantly more stringent than the old.
The text of what is ―necessary‖ sets a hurdle
which is on any view significantly higher that the
old test of what is ―reasonably required.‘

Five points from TG
 First, active judicial case management has for some
years now been an integral and essential part of practice
in family cases, as it is for all other civil and criminal
cases.
 Second, an essential part of appropriate case
management is the power of the court to control
evidence.
 Third, the court has particular case management
responsibilities in relation to experts.

TG (cont)
 Fourth, the Court of Appeal has recently re-emphasised the
importance of supporting first-instance judges who make robust
but fair case-management decisions.
 Fifth, in evaluating whether an appellant meets the high
threshold required to justify its intervention, the Court of Appeal
must have regard to and must loyally apply the principles laid
down by Lord Hoffmann, speaking for a unanimous House of
Lords, in Piglowska v Piglowski [1999] 1 WLR 1360, 1372. In
relation to appeals against the exercise of discretion it is
conventional to refer to the classic authority of G v G (Minors:
Custody Appeal) [1985] 1 WLR 647.

Letter of instruction
 Court must approve.
 Are the instructions too wide? E.g. psychologists only
reporting on psychological issues. Limited no of Qs
 Can the expert report within timetable court has set?
 Message to experts – if you want to do the work, report
on time. Succinct reports. Executive summary

Disclosure from police, etc
 Should also be ordered at First Case Management
Hearing.
 Ensure local protocols for disclosure are followed (e.g.
Metropolitan police will complain in writing if not
followed). Will be new protocol for Plymouth DFC.
 May well need to be reviewed at Second Case
Management Hearing.

Next hearing
 Second Case management hearing.
 Is it necessary?

IRH/Final Hearing
 Not a directions hearing. May be final hearing.
 A genuine attempt must be made to resolve
issues at this hearing.
 If issues are not resolved – identify what issues
have to be litigated at the final hearing.
 Use preambles to orders to record where you
are.
 In a 26 week case must be by week 20 if at all
possible.

Final hearing
 Time that case starts. If case is listed at 10 o‘clock the parties
must be in court at 10 o‘clock (unless the court is engaged in
another case). It should not be for the usher to find the parties.
 If more time is needed court can be asked for it, having come to
court at the time ordered.
 If ordered to be at court by e.g. 9 o‘clock, parties need to ensure
they are.
 Production orders – consider the realistic time at which the
person in custody is to be produced. Is a 10 o‘clock start
realistic?

If placement order made
 ‗The Respondent parents must keep the court
and the Local Authority informed of their
current addresses in order that effective notice
can be given to them of any subsequent
adoption proceedings. If they do not do so, a
court may subsequently order that effective
notice of such proceedings may be given to their
last known addresses‘.

Final hearings - Case Summaries
 Case Summaries from the Local Authority are
essential and must be filed at least 48 hours
before the final hearing. Up to date and relevant.
 Short positions statements should also be filed
by all other parties.
 Can be sent by email to judges and consider
arranging to do the same with magistrates.

Bundles – Plymouth DFC Protocol
 Key core documents – set out in protocol.
 Will be revised for Magistrates and Legal Advisers
 Master bundle only to be brought to court by Local
Authority.
 Local Authority Case Summary with prescribed
information
 Position statements – all parties (includes guardian). 24
hours. By email also.
 Other core documents
 Compliance essential. Otherwise it does not work.

The Children and Families Bill –
Core aspects
 13 Control of expert evidence, and of
assessments, in children proceedings.
 14 Care, supervision and other family
proceedings: time limits and timetables.
 15 Care plans.

Statutory basis for modernisation–
e.g.
 Art 13 (6): The court may give permission [for an
expert] only if the court is of the opinion that the
expert evidence is necessary to assist the court to
resolve the proceedings justly.
 Art 14(2): In section 32(1)(a) (timetable for dealing with
application for care or supervision order) for ―disposing
of the application without delay; and‖ substitute
―disposing of the application (i) without delay, and (ii)
in any event within twenty-six weeks beginning with the
day on which the application was issued; and‖.

Extend beyond 26 weeks?
Statute [the Bill]
 14 (6) - When deciding whether to grant an extension under subsection (5), a
court must in particular have regard to—(a) the impact which any ensuing
timetable revision would have on the welfare of the child to whom the
application relates, and (b) the impact which any ensuing timetable revision
would have on the duration and conduct of the proceedings; and here
―ensuing timetable revision‖ means any revision, of the timetable under
subsection (1)(a) for the proceedings, which the court considers may ensue
from the extension.
 (7) When deciding whether to grant an extension under subsection (5), a
court is to take account of the following guidance: extensions are not to be
granted routinely and are to be seen as requiring specific justification.
 (8) Each separate extension under subsection (5) is to end no more than eight
weeks after the later of— (a) the end of the period being extended; and (b)
the end of the day on which the extension is granted.

The Bill – reduced scrutiny of care
plan – Art. 15
 ―(3A) A court deciding whether to make a care order— (a) is
required to consider the permanence provisions of the section
31A plan for the child concerned, but (b) is not required to
consider the remainder of the section 31A plan, subject to
section 34(11).
 (3B) For the purposes of subsection (3A), the permanence
provisions of a section 31A plan are such of the plan‘s
provisions setting out the long term plan for the upbringing of
the child concerned as provide for any of the following— (a) the
child to live with any parent of the child‘s or with any other
member of, or any friend of, the child‘s family; (b) adoption; (c)
long-term care not within paragraph (a) or (b).

Social work evidence
 The President has stressed that the expertise
of social workers and guardians in relation to
the welfare of children must be recognised.
 They do not require Part 25 authorisation, of
course.

Plymouth initiatives
 Regular conferences / lectures are to be held to ensure that
Judges, Magistrates, legal advisers, court staff, lawyers,
Cafcass, social workers and academics are aware of current
issues and how they are being dealt with.
 CASMOs and CVRs - innovative
 Discussions will also be taking place with the Department of
Work and Pensions and also with such charities as the
Samaritans to see how there can be better facilitation of
support for adults, witnesses and children who are involved
in family court processes.

Subgroups
 In the focus on public law is would be easy for
other areas of family law to be forgotten. We
cannot allow that to happen.
 In particular, we need to keep private law,
adoption and financial remedy work on all our
agendas.
 There will also be a subgroup established to
look at LIPs and how we ensure justice for
them.

Late transfers
 It causes a very real problem when cases are transferred
from the FPC to the County court at a late stage.
 Where any case is transferred at a stage later than the
first directions appointment (i.e. the first case
management hearing), the legal adviser, DJ (MC) or
Chair of the Bench must send an email to HHJ
Robertshaw stating the name and number of the case,
that the transfer has been made and the reasons for the
late transfer.

Emails to Judges relating to listed
hearings – conditions that apply
 Save where stated, these arrangements do not
apply to the Magistrates court or to
Magistrates. They relate only to judges sitting
in the Plymouth, Torquay and Newton
Abbot County Courts;

Emails
 All emails that are sent to a judge must be
copied in to the court office as well as being
sent to the judge;
 Such emails must be sent from secure email
sites only;
 The name of the judge, the name of the case
and the date of the hearing must appear in the
subject line of the email;

Emails
 Only the following documents may be sent by email
to the judge:
i) Case summaries / skeleton arguments;
ii) Position statements;
iii) Reports (not statements) that have been received by
the parties within the period of seven days or less
from the date of the relevant hearing;
iv) Other documents that the judge has expressly
requested or directed to be sent by email.

Emails
 The sending of a document by email is not a substitute
for filing hard copies with the court office in the
normal way;
 The party sending documents by email must not
assume that the document will be printed by the court
or by the judge. The provision of hard copies is a
matter for the parties and not for the court;
 This email arrangement is not a justification for the late
filing of documents.

Emails
 Emails about cases should not be sent to Judges on the morning
of the hearing and should be sent by at least noon of the day
before (subject to contrary direction and any protocol relating to
case summaries and position statements);
 Emails must not be sent to the court staff with attachments on
the expectation that the court will print them off. The court is
not a printing service. It is the responsibility of parties to file
hard copies of documents. In an emergency only, the court may
be prepared to print off a small number of documents that are
strictly necessary for emergency action. This applies to the
Magistrates court as well.

Emails
 Any misuse of the above by any person,
business or institution will result in:
 the facility being withdrawn from that person,
business or institution
 the email being deleted, unread, from the systems of
the judge and court.

Adoption: past , present and future
Anthony Douglas CBE
Chief Executive, Cafcass
Wednesday 22nd May 2013

Adoption: then and now
Then Now
1950’s
The biological pretence – ‘he’s
better off not knowing’
------ Adoption with contact
1950/
60’s
No support needed ------
All concerned: adoptee, adoptive
parent and birth parent may need
lifelong support
1970’s
Children should not be
advertised for adoption ------
Children featured in The Sun
newspaper during National Adoption
week
Today Social work led-matching days ------
Adoption parties and adoption
activity days
Then and Now - Forced or illegal adoptions, sometimes for profit
Then and Now - Child-centred, altruistic adoption

Adoption metrics
• 800,000 people in the UK have been adopted since legalisation in England and Wales in
1926 – the first Adoption Act did not allow adopted children an inheritance.
• 1 in 3 of us know someone who is adopted or an adopter
• There have been over 60% more care applications and 60% more Placement Orders in
the last 5 years
• The average age a child comes into care is 7.5 (in England and it is identical in Wales)
• Adoption breakdown is closely correlated with the age at placement – the older the
child, the greater the risk of disruption or breakdown. However, ‘late’ adoptions do
work for some young people.
• Over 4,500 children in England are waiting for an adopter. 364 adopters are on the
Adoption Register, waiting for a child. The two figures continue to diverge, although
referrals to the Register have increased over the last 3 months.
• In the US, 15% of adoptions are by relatives
• Most countries outlaw adoption as an infringement of family rights.
• Some, like Australia, have troubled adoption histories from which they can’t recover
and move on
• The average duration of care proceedings has come down by over 20% over the last
twelve months, and continues to reduce.

A culture of urgency
• Care cases project managed from the day a child comes into care to
the day she or he leaves (using a case tracker)
• Case plans defining the nature and timescale of all professional activity
• Timetables taking into account emotional and psychological processes,
as well as court and bureaucratic processes
• A culture change in social work teams, particularly in family placement
teams, replacing a culture of delay with a culture of urgency
• 2 stage assessment for adopters: adopter-led to begin with,
professionally-led at the end, approaching the decision
• A concurrent 6 month maximum for all stages of the care and
placement process
• Extended viability assessments (6-8 weeks), before care proceedings,
leading to a single proposition for children subject to care proceedings
wherever possible

LINES OF ENQUIRY
EVIDENCE BASE
• After social work input, mum supports kinship care placement with
PGM
• Permanence assessment of PGM and PGF concludes positively in
5 weeks
• Their assessment concludes this will keep both mum and dad
positively involved in child’s upbringing
• PGF health issues resolved
Mum engages with
social worker on a
contract to enter
drug rehab
MGM commits to safe
shared care with child
Dad commits to child
Mum’s sister
assessed for viability
PGM, already a permanent
carer for 2 grandchildren,
positively assessed for viability
Concerns expressed
by mum about PGM
PGF health issues

Equal status - ‘emotional and psychological
permanence’ options
• Safe reunification
• Kinship care
• Permanent fostering
• Adoption
• Special Guardianship
• Residential care

Assessing for emotional and
psychological permanence
• Considering the same single assessment process for a permanence
carer, irrespective of the child’s eventual legal status
• A new more streamlined analytical assessment process – a critical
analysis of parenting capacity
• Use of ‘assessment agreements’, extending self-assessment as
much as possible
• Active assessment combining a teaching element e.g., about
therapeutic parenting, attachment
• Smart due diligence

Contact Today
Contact is not a
bargaining tool at
the court room
door, nor a rights
jamboree
Interim contact
needs are for
children, not
parents
Long-term contact
needs should
recognise the
reality for the 21st
century child e.g.
use of apps like
Facetime
Contact should not be
polarised to mother v
father, but should flow
from the child’s world,
where many children
need to stay in touch
with friends as much as
parents and relatives –
an ‘inclusive network’
framework for contact

Adoption- the Evidence Base
Dr Julie Selwyn, Hadley Centre for Adoption
and Foster Care Studies University of Bristol
www.bristol.ac.uk/hadley

Adoption in England
(year ending March 31st 2012)
3,450 adoptions FY
2012
Up 12% from the
previous year
• 85% white and 10%
mixed ethnicity
• 72% entered care
because of abuse and
neglect compared with
56% of whole care
population.
• Only 70 children (2%)
adopted under 1yr of
age

Children adopted from care- what do we know about risks to
their healthy development?
Pre-natal exposure to alcohol/substances and lack of antenatal care.
More likely to have been abused/neglected than the rest of the care population.
Many come from backgrounds of many genetic risks and enter care with physical
and mental health problems.
More likely to have entered care on an EPO.
Not be placed for adoption until 2yrs or older.
Have experienced multiple placements and caregivers.

What do we know about Adoption Outcomes?
Adults adopted as infants in the 1950s-60s have outcomes similar to the general
population
Late placed children can have very good outcomes but adolescence time of
greatest uncertainty
Adopted children’s sense of belonging and permanence greater than those in
long term foster care
Disruption rates - Infant adoptions 1-3%
Late placed maltreated children : 18% 7yrs later (Selwyn2007) 29% at age 16
yrs (Rushton & Dance 2004)
Disruption rates lower than permanent foster care

Outcomes of infant adoptions at age 33
(NCDS data)
0
10
20
30
40
50
Adopted
general population
birth comparisons
a-lev el or any broken high malaise psy chiatric alcohol
higher relation ships score treatment problems

Comparative outcomes according to quality of start
(from Howe,1997)
0
20
40
60
80
100
baby
good start/late
poor start/ late
hostility during psy chological learning problems no GCSE/GCE
adolescence treatment at school

Changes in attachment patterns and behaviour following
adoption out of care- recent UK studies
New & more positive sets of representations develop in
competition with existing negative ones.
Most studies of late placed adopted children show some
improvements but about a third with high SDQ scores.
Improvements but not recovery. Persistence the message
from research.

Implications for adoption preparation and support
Early experiences remain as vulnerabilities easily
triggered.
Adopters can provide such triggers unknowingly.
Extent of recovery varies greatly between children and
between domains of functioning within the same child.
Good multi-disciplinary assessments needed.

Threats to stability
Age of child at
placement.
Presence of conduct
disorder, attachment
difficulties and over-
active behaviour.
Selective rejection.
Child does not
accept placement or
need for care.

Impact of delay
 More moves in foster care- instability and more
broken connections
 Increasing risks to emotional and behavioural
development
 Increasing risk of breakdown of placement
 New challenges to LA plans in court
 Chances of being adopted reduce by 20% for each
year of delay
 Children believe they are unlovable and unwanted

Reducing delay
Senior management oversight. Decisive and early
decision-making especially around neglect to prevent
drift.
Court delays- ensure SW practice is not responsible.
Assessments -Improve assessment ( esp pre-birth) and
planning for reunifications.

Summary
Balance optimism about adoption with realism about
the long term effects of maltreatment.
Adopted children improve but some continue to
experience difficulties.
Adoption may provide a family for life but not an end
to local authority’s responsibilities
Recognition of the life-long impact of abuse and
neglect.

References
Biehal et al (2010) Belonging and permanence, London BAAF
Brown B and Ward H (2011) Decision making within a child’s timeframe
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/JCO%2FDocuments%2FFJC%2FDecision_making_within_a_childs_timeframe_Oct_2012_CWRC_WP_16.pdf
Coakley, J. F., & Berrick, J. D. (2008). Research review: In a rush to permanency: Preventing adoption disruption. Child and Family Social
Work, 13, 101–112.
Dance C and Rushton A (2005) Predictors of outcome for unrelated adoptive placements made during middle childhood Child and
Family Social work 10: 4, pp 269-280
Dance C , Rushton A and Quinton D (2002) Emotional abuse in early childhood: relationships with progress in subsequent family
placement Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 43: 3 395-407
Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute. (2004). What’s working for children: A policy study of adoption stability and termination.
http://www.adoptioninstitute.org/ publications/Disruption_Report.pdf
Jones, R., et al. (2011) Factors associated with outcomes for looked-after children and young people: A correlates review of the
literature. Child:Care, Health and Development, 37 (5), 613-622.
Rushton, A. and Dance, C. (2003) ‘Preferentially rejected children and their development in permanent family placements.’ Child and
Family Social Work, 8, pp 257-267.
Selwyn et al (2006) Costs and Outcomes of non-infant adoptions, London BAAF
Steele, M. Hodges, J., Kaniuk, J., Steele, H., Asquith, K., & Hillman, S. (2009). Attachment Representations and Adoption Outcome: On the
use of narrative assessments to track the adaptation of previously maltreated children in their new families. In B. Neil & G. Wrobel (Eds.),
International Advances in Adoption Research for Practice (pp 193-216). New York: Wiley.
Triseliotis, J. 2002. Long-term foster care or adoption? The evidence examined. Child and Family Social Work 7: 23–33.
And www.adoptionresearchinitiative .org.uk

Adoption Conference 2013
Plymouth University
Any Questions??

The Modernisation Programme

More Related Content

Viewers also liked (7)

Similar to The Modernisation Programme (20)

More from The Organic Agency (7)

The Modernisation Programme