News

The Association of Directors of Social Services last week withdrew its evidence supporting the right of birth parents to deny adopted people access to their birth records, during the committee stage of the Adoption and Children Bill.

"I'm not going to defend my corner, but I am going to retreat from it," former ADSS president, and Kensington and Chelsea director of social services, Moira Gibb told the House of Commons special standing committee.

Indicating that the ADSS had received further information on the issue, she added: "If you wanted to accuse us of being confused, then you would have some justification."

Clause 58 of the bill, as it currently stands, would make it impossible for adoption agencies (including local authorities) to disclose to adopted adults the information needed to obtain a copy of their original birth certificate, whenever a birth parent objected to the disclosure of the information. This would reverse the existing right introduced by the Children Act 1975.

The bill's principal at the Department of Health James Paton said the government wanted to ensure a more consistent approach to the information adopted people could access. This would include allowing all parties the opportunity to express a view about the disclosure of identification information and putting in place safeguards for the small minority where disclosure would be "inappropriate or harmful".

Paton said the DoH had received a small number of representations where disclosure might be potentially dangerous for birth parents, including one case in which an adoptee had set out their "express intention of killing their birth parent", because the adoption had taken place after severe abuse which had left the adoptee physically damaged.

In reply, committee chairperson David Hinchliffe suggested the government was using "a sledgehammer to crack a nut". Paton also admitted that the DoH did not have any information on criminal offences committed by adopted people against their birth parents.

Giving evidence for British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering, its chief executive Felicity Collier said: "We do hope very, very strongly that you will reject this change."

Debate grows over threshold for consent

Raising the threshold for when a birth parent's consent can be dispensed with in adoption placements would be a "very bad idea", it was claimed last week.

Giving evidence to the House of Commons special standing committee on the Adoption and Children Bill currently before parliament, former professor of applied social studies at Swansea University Sonia Jackson said she was "absolutely opposed" to suggestions put forward by campaigners, including BAAF.

Under the bill as it stands, courts and adoption agencies will have to take account of "child's welfare" in dispensing with parental consent to adoption. But BAAF and others have argued that the bill's wording should be amended so the adoption would have to be "so significantly better for the child than any other option".

However, Professor Jackson disagreed, pointing to evidence that shows the public care system is not a good corporate parent and that only 5 per cent of looked-after children are adopted.

"Adoption is by far the most stable form of placement," she said, adding that BAAF's proposals would undermine the government's objectives of increasing the number of adoptions.