This week's summit on adoption, called by the Prime Minister, was conceived out of pure politics. It was a knee-jerk reaction - to myths and outdated criticisms of social work, to the Waterhouse inquiry, and to a simplistic interpretation of statistics.

In other words, the government wanted to be seen to respond in a high profile way to the most high profile issue in social services. That is the only logic behind the Prime Minister's move.

Nevertheless, thanks to level heads at the Department of Health and elsewhere, some good has come of it. The fact that a national register of approved adopters is under consideration is welcome, as is a more inclusive notion of who is suitable to adopt. National standards are, of course, important.

It is tempting, therefore, to praise elements of the government's approach, while conveniently ignoring the context.

But those who work in adoption do not have that luxury. Child care services, as a whole, face daunting challenges, with professionals pulled in many directions at once to meet the needs of difficult and terribly disadvantaged children and families.

Child protection workers are exhorted both to support vulnerable families, and to judge "feckless" parents more quickly and harshly. Of the children who must come into care, many will never be adopted, and professionals must work either to reunite them safely with their families, or to care for them for years without a permanent family. And residential child care is still struggling with low morale, recruitment crises and its traumatic history.

It should hardly need saying yet again, but adoptive parents are just one option - albeit often the best option - for young people in care. They are people with rights, and should be treated as a valuable resource. But they are not people with the right to adopt a child.

Pressure from those who wish to adopt should not prevent us from viewing child care services as a spectrum, for only a spectrum of flexible services can meet the demands placed on us. The government is right to criticise local authorities who have not seen adoption as an intrinsic part of that whole. But all child care services, as the government's Quality Protects programme recognises, need to be able to respond to each child's individual needs and circumstances, otherwise they will not succeed. And they all share other problems, such as a shortage of social workers, which must also be addressed as part of any plan to improve quality.

All children who cannot live with their birth families need the highest possible quality of care, not only those who can be adopted. Children in care would be better off if they were all as dear to the Prime Minister's heart as those suitable for adoption appear to be.

There is an implied threat from government that this summit is the last chance for local authorities. But there must be no threat of removing adoption from the local authority child care system, however much it fits the skewed, knee-jerk logic of a government often more concerned with image than substance.