Tonight (Wednesday) at 9pm on BBC1, Panorama follows six children in Coventry waiting to find a new family. The programme makers claim this is the first documentary to cover adoption breakdown.
Sounds like it will be well worth a watch. Hopefully it will make a useful contribution to the adoption debate.
CareSpace support
It will be interesting to see how 'breakdown' is defined - sometimes it can actually prove positive for the young person.
Well, hardly a ringing endorsement was it? The fact that in 1 Case Coventry appeared to have caused a delay by not following proper Procedures would be inexcusable and to leave a young boy still in an uncertain situation when he is old enought to understand to a significant degree what is going on.
With the 3 children also to call their mum "Claire" was wrong - she IS their "mummy" until such times as they may be adopted.
I also felt that telling children about the search for a new mummy and daddy which had been on-going for 3 years could well leave them wondering if there was something a matter with themselves that no-one wanted to adopt them speedily.
Whilst it was only an hour-long Programme it left me as a former registered social worker / manager feeling extremely uneasy and sad that over the past several years Coventry seems not to have improved very much - if at all. It hardly portrayed them as pursuing adoption dynamically and purposefully but, hopefully, the apparent deficiencies are more to do with 'good television' than poor social work practise.
Another disturbing element was the prepondrance of white children being considered for adoption. Indeed after most of the documentary had been broadcast I was getting a little tired of seeing pretty white girls and handsome white boys portrayed. Are only white children 'in the frame' for adoption in Coventry?
It is likely the debate over the adoption opportunities for racial minorites will be re-ignited.
Coventry was also utterly wrong to tell the little boy that he would be staying with his long-term foster carers permanently when the process was still being disputed - if it was adults we would say that it was using 'mind games' - if there can not be total honesty then at least don't tell children things that you do not have it in your power to deliver on.
The more that I reflect on the Programme the more angry I am becoming - this is no way to treat children, parents or foster-carers / prospective adopters and someone needs to be accountable - perhaps their Adoption Services need an urgent independent review carrying out because a lot of what I saw was little short of appallingly bad practise.
Predictable responses.
When has there ever been a documentary that showed LAs in a positive way?
I take it with a pinch of salt.
I bet the kids were born in a dutch zoo.
'The Truth about Adoption' was another excellent documentary from Roger Graef's company - Films of Record. A big thank you to everyone involved in it - particularly, the six children and their parents/carers. I found it compelling viewing and very moving.I have to disagree with previous posts because I felt this was a realistic account of what goes on and it was good that everyone was presented in a sympathetic way, including the birth mothers. It showed very clearly the dilemmas and difficulties for social workers in achieving successful 'outcomes' and that there are often many unforeseen obstacles to care plans, even when social workers are doing their very best to achieve them.The film made it easy for the lay person to understand the issues and hopefully would offer prospective adopters an insight into what they can expect. Whilst babies and very young children are easy to place, older children or sibling groups are much more challenging. It provided a positive picture of social work practice (yes, there's always room for improvement, but I thought the social worker seemed very sensible) - and this can only be good for improving the image of the profession.One thing that interested me was the effect on birth mothers when an adoption breaks down. Suddenly, they are brought back into the new situation - but they are left in limbo and their hopes of getting their child back are revived, probably unrealistically. Another interesting point was the new legal provision for Special Guardianship orders which can offer the necessary security for children who cannot be adopted and ongoing support for carers, if necessary. One of the misunderstandings about adoption is that it represents a successful 'outcome' but in reality it is often the beginning of problems - in the sense that the security of being adopted often means that child feels safe enough to begin acting out their real problems.....Incidentally, I recently saw Martin Narey present evidence to an Education Select Committee on child protection thresholds and I was very impressed with him. He seems to have a good understanding of the social work issues with regard to adoption and the current gridlock in the system and has identified particular areas where attitude-change is urgently required.
That's a very encouraging and positive statement.
But can you address the perception (on my part only, as no-one else has mentioned it) that the desire to increase and improve adoption will be for white kids only?
'Cos that perception was re-inforced by the Panorama documentary.
Perhaps it also raises the issue of rushing too early into adoption because the little boy was placed early and it broke down.
There ought to be far more intensive support available for parents because one thing we do know is that 'blood is thicker than water' - to permanently sever the blood ties is a most serious line of action and whilst delay in achieving adoption can be dangerous so too can rushing into it to meet Government targets.
RachelL: That's a very encouraging and positive statement. But can you address the perception (on my part only, as no-one else has mentioned it) that the desire to increase and improve adoption will be for white kids only? 'Cos that perception was re-inforced by the Panorama documentary.
It says a lot about the state of social work that a well-intentioned documentary produces the usual knee-jerk reaction from someone who sees everything through the filter of race. You obviously missed the point that the aim of the programme was to highlight the dilemmas for social workers, and the emotional consequences of the adoption process for children, birth parents, foster parents and adopters.
'owl' - IF it was so 'well intentioned' why did it not explain the several months delay arising from Coventry not following Procedures? Was the social worker given poor legal advice or was she just incompetent?There has to be accountability and I hope that his Guardian pursues any relevant claim on his behalf for compensation and that his birth mother does likewise.
A formal complaint at least may well be appropriate.
I was, however, impressed by the passion and anger / frustration of Sam Sharkey the Independent Reviewing Officer in relation to the 3 children whose adoptive placement ended after 3 years - I hope that a full investigation took place into this awful situation. One wonders how much emotional damage may have been happening over those 3 years. What support was put in? For them to have Christmas approaching and not know where they will be is truly awful - utterly heartbreaking. Surely we can do better than this - surely.
simeon3:The programme makers claim this is the first documentary to cover adoption breakdown.
BBC 'A Home For Maisie' aired on 10.5.11 and documented Maisie's 3rd adoption after 2 past disruptions.
I thought the figures presented for children 'languishing in care' were quite misleading, as the whole figures for LAC were quoted, which is somewhere in the region of 65,000 as stated; but most of those will not have an adoption plan.
http://www.communitycare.co.uk/carespace/forums/a-home-for-maisie-bbc-puts-adoption-in-the-10466.aspx#47233
Rupert M, I can't believe this! I thought the outburst from Sam Sharkey was deeply offensive. His anger and frustration was understandable but inappropriate at a Review. He came across as a bullying manager more interested in controlling others than in dealing with the tragic consequences of placement breakdown.
All very distracting I'm sure: the usual knee-jerk reaction from someone who sees everything through the filter of race
Except you didn't manage to answer the question. Are the planned reforms and improvements going to benefit just white children?
Are we going to continue to see the current state, whereby the chances of a black or ethnic minority child NOT spending their time-in-care lanquishing in a care home will be in marked contrast to the opportunities afforded to a small (but nonetheless larger) minority of white children?
'Cos excuse me for bringing-up a subject you want to avoid with your distracting reply, but that is one of the key issues of concern to many outside this discussion. Based on the documentary only its hard-to-say; all of the children were white. Based on this Department of Education summary, the adoption process for black children takes 50% longer (so I guess more potential adoption families drop-out).
What improvements will there be to address this state-of-affairs.
Coventry isn't a city simply devoid of ethnic minorities. As the second largest city in the Midlands it has a population of over 300,000, broken-down as follows;
79.2% White12.3% South Asian3.1% Black British2.4% Mixed Race3.0% East Asian and Other
There are fewer chances for BME children waiting to be adopted as there are too few BME adopters coming forward. Whilst many adopters are very positive about adopting outside of their own ethnicity, many are not. What are your suggestions RachelL?
owl: Rupert M, I can't believe this! I thought the outburst from Sam Sharkey was deeply offensive. His anger and frustration was understandable but inappropriate at a Review. He came across as a bullying manager more interested in controlling others than in dealing with the tragic consequences of placement breakdown.
Likewise I only warmed to the SW when she cried with the lad.
We need less textbook and more compassion.
Yes a strategic approach but don't train the humanity out of SWs, to they extent they can only see cases/ targets/standards.
We want managers at the top with compassion, who will crack the whip when children start to languish.
Crucially, the difference between the demand for adoptive families and the supply wasn’t explored and despite the posturing of the government, this is truly what lies at the heart of the problem. Too many children need long-term care and there are not enough people to provide this.
100% with you on compassion Shirack....but why should any child languish...isn't purposeful work being undertaken with these "Languishing children", by foster carers, social workers etc...aren't they learning through relationships and other vehicles for child development...are they not getting special help that their circumstances demand...they are not parked whilst waiting for a permanent placement but are and remain live and sentient developing human beings with common human needs and uncommon experiences.....which they remain after placement too...read Jeanette Winterson's wonderfully written account of her adoption in "Why be Happy When You Can Be Normal", for a funny, moving insightful, and authentic account of adoption if you need to understand this.
If the answer to any of my questions above is no...then we really are in trouble.
So less of the perjoriative use of the term, "languishing in care"....as if every child in care is a candidate for adoption...which seems to be the fiction that some movers and shakers are peddling
Good point BD.
I do recognise adoption is not a catch all and that some prefer the less intense relationships of the omes.
I knew many who saw Auntie Blod as mum.
Sadly the issue here was about 3 children whose adoptions broke down after 3 years, a youngster who could have been adopted but for Coventry not following Procedures, 2 children whose first foster carer "couldn't look after" them all and whose second foster-carer "wanted to go to work at night" - that is all disgraceful and, yes, leaves them languising emotionally - and that is probably the most dangerous of all.
For 3 of them at least not know where they will be spending Christmas is heartbreaking and a terrible indictment on what we call 'Care' - more like careless.
Boxerdog:but why should any child languish...isn't purposeful work being undertaken with these "Languishing children", by foster carers, social workers etc...aren't they learning through relationships and other vehicles for child development...are they not getting special help that their circumstances demand...they are not parked whilst waiting for a permanent placement but are and remain live and sentient developing human beings with common human needs and uncommon experiences..
Of course it should be, but unfortunately and tragically, some of these children are not having purposeful work done with them or getting the input they need. I see the practice of local authorities all over the UK....some gives me hope and some makes me despair.
The role of Independent Reviewing Officers is particularly important - they can refer back to CAFCASS if the LA is not acting properly and are in a position to exert significant pressure on LA's BUT they need to be prepared to indeed act 'independently' of their LA Paymaster.
Someone has put in FOI questions to Cafcass about these type of referrals to Cafcass from IRO's and are awaiting data...but i predict that the number of referrals is very low if not non existant in most LA's....
Why is this??? is the next question
recent info from the "What do They Know" website following a FOI request to Cafcass.
1. On a year by year basis since September 2004 how many referrals has CAFCASS received from Independent Reviewing Officers under s25B(3)(a) Children Act 1989. 2. In how many of those cases was a CAFCASS officer appointed to investigate under the CAFCASS (Reviewed Case Referral) Regulations 2004. 3. In how many of those cases did CAFCASS issue proceedings under its powers in regulation 3? 4. Please indicate what type of proceedings were issued. Please see below: 1. On a year by year basis since September 2004 how many referrals has CAFCASS received from Independent Reviewing Officers under s25B(3)(a) Children Act 1989. Cafcass has received eight referrals 2. In how many of those cases was a CAFCASS officer appointed to investigate under the CAFCASS (Reviewed Case Referral) Regulations 2004. In all eight referrals a Cafcass officer was appointed. 3. In how many of those cases did CAFCASS issue proceedings under its powers in regulation 3? None. 4. Please indicate what types of proceedings were issued. Please see 3 above above. As predicted
2. In how many of those cases was a CAFCASS officer appointed to investigate under the CAFCASS (Reviewed Case Referral) Regulations 2004.
3. In how many of those cases did CAFCASS issue proceedings under its powers in regulation 3?
4. Please indicate what type of proceedings were issued.
Please see below:
1. On a year by year basis since September 2004 how many referrals has CAFCASS received from Independent Reviewing Officers under s25B(3)(a) Children Act 1989.
Cafcass has received eight referrals
In all eight referrals a Cafcass officer was appointed.
None.
4. Please indicate what types of proceedings were issued.
Please see 3 above above.
As predicted
And well done Rupert...you were like a ferret up a drainpipe...will Douglas reveal all???
Sorry RachelL but I think that your own stats say why it was wholly appropriate for the 3 families portrayed to be from the almost 80% white community. What do you think that substituting one of the white families with one from the BME community would have added to the programme? Would you have liked some of the points so skillfully presented to have been passed by just so some poor little BME kid could say me to?. Seems to me there is a reason for the M being in BME and it shouldn't mean that the likes of you (and I presume you are from a BME background) should be able to shout louder than the almost 80% of the population just because you are from a minority.
Perhaps this is why most people on here are just passing your comments by. Oh and by the way, if you are going to make sweeping statements it would be nice if you could substantiate claims you make - thank you.
I don't really see how anyone could take exception to RachelL's comments. Black children wait longer and are less likely to get adopted. Including one or more children from non-white backgrounds would have been appropriate and added depth to the progamme. This is not about proportionality (though just to say that 80% of people are white in Coventry does not mean that 80% of children waiting for adoption are likely to be white. BME people are disproproportionately younger and they are also more likely to be in care and more likely to be waiting for a placement. Given these figures I would be surprised if less than 40% of children in Coventry waiting for adoption were black, and it may well be half or more).
On the other hand, I am amazed they got access to any children at all and the reality is that they may just have filmed those they could film.
I found this documentary angered and saddened me in equal measure. What had happened in some of these families was a tragedy for all concerned. But it seems completely inappropriate to call it "The truth about adoption". More accurate to name it "what happens when adoption plans go wrong".
While we do not know how many adoptions disrupt we can be pretty sure it is a relatively small number (probably less than 5%). For children placed under the age of 2 it is even smaller. This documentary did not look at the vast majority of successful adoptions.
The "truth about adoption" is that this is by no means the end of the story. Most of the carers experience challenges and difficulties even if the placement does not disrupt - though most of the children do very well.
I was completely amazed by some of the practice in this documentary e.g. reintroducing the mother while the plan remained for adoption. What purpose did this serve?
The matching was deliberately edited to look ridiculous (eg focussing on having a dog when finding a family prepared to take them was of overwhelming importance - I doubt this was genuinely what happened) or the implication that all kids in care are waiting to be adopted.
It did make me wonder (not for the first time) whether for children who are hard to place eg older children, siblings and children with disabilities or problems, is our focus on adoption really appropriate? Many of these children would be better remaining in permanent foster care, and looking for adoptive placements is not necessarily about what is best for the child/ren as much as what is cheapest.
Nonetheless the biggest danger of a documentary such as this is that it leads professionals to wrongly conclude that adoption does not "work". In fact, it remains a form of placement with overwhelmingly positive outcomes for most children. This documentary highlights the importance of realistic plans speedily executed where adoption is appropriate.
DonaldF, I think the point that's been made is that it's important to avoid 'tokenism'; i.e BME being seen as something that can be added in to 'add depth'.
At the same time, the reality is that BME children in care are over-represented and BME children waiting to be adopted are also over-represented.
Boxerdog: And well done Rupert...you were like a ferret up a drainpipe...will Douglas reveal all???
Your reference number is CAF508. Please see below: i) Can you please advise whether there are any currently unfilled Posts at Operational Director level and, if so, how long those positions have been unfilled? There will be one unfilled Operational Director post from January 2012. ii) Have their been any recent resignations at that level? Yes - from December 2011. iii) Have their been any dismissals at that level? No
name="2"> iv) Are any Operational Directors currently subject to either Suspension or Disciplinary Proceedings? No In response to each question above please state the geographic locations covered by any such Operational Directors. The Operational Director who resigned covered North and South West England.
Cafcass is managed by Chief Executive, Anthony Douglas CBE, and Operational Directors Vince Clark, Christine Banim and Darren Shaw who manage South, Central and North England respectively. Five other directors represent support functions such as Policy, HR, Finance, Legal and IT. Click on the link above for full detailsorry to hi-jack this thread...will move to new one after this post...promise.
Taken from Cafcass website......
so OD North has gone and so has OD South...both this month...is my maths out????
See Fassit site why Charles Place resigned from CAFCASS
ww.fassit.co.uk/newsletters/newsletter_sept_oct_2011.htm
Its wonderful that you think I was asking why the program didn't have any BME children featured, but unfortunately that wasn't the original question. Which was;
Now I would be grateful if my perception could be challenged and corrected. Will this new-found focus on adoption be to the benefit of just white children?
If so, how will the system be changed to ensure BME children are better represented amongst those children adopted?
If not, why not?
And at what point did this attitude take hold?
'Seems to me there is a reason for the M being in BME and it shouldn't mean that the likes of you (and I presume you are from a BME background) should be able to shout louder than the almost 80% of the population just because you are from a minority.'
Shout louder? What, as in shot louder about matters that impact the BME populace. Like say institutionalised racism?
And what measures do you propose to take against awkward folk who 'shout louder'?
Thou revealest too much I think.
RachelL- in order to increase/improve adoption chances for BME children, you would need to increase the number of adopters wishing to adopt BME children.
Are you suggesting there should be a government drive to persuade more BME adopters to come forward? Whose motivation would that fulfill? Would that be right for the child? How would this be done? An attractive allowance maybe? How committed to the adoption would they really be?
Or are you suggesting that more, for example, White British adopters, are persuaded more favourably to adopting a BME child, even thought their preference may be for a White, British child? How would you do that? Whose motivation would that fulfill? Would that be right for the child? How would this be done? An attractive allowance maybe? How committed the adoption would they really be?
Trans-racial matching does work sometimes. Sometimes it doesn't. At the very least everyone has to be happy with it and should be doing it for their own personal reasons, not to meet targets.
It's probably an obvious one, but my earlier posting gave a big clue;
Based on this Department of Education summary, the adoption process for black children takes 50% longer .
So, how about this; find out why and if suitable remedies for this disparity can be found, implement them.
RachelL: It's probably an obvious one, but my earlier posting gave a big clue; Based on this Department of Education summary, the adoption process for black children takes 50% longer . So, how about this; find out why and if suitable remedies for this disparity can be found, implement them.
RachelL, I'm very aware of the statistics...did you read my post? As I'm agreeing the process on average takes longer.
RE, why;
well, I am arguing that there are fewer BME adopters coming forward....and sorry to spell it out...but this is why BME children wait longer to be adopted. Lots of BME children waiting, lots of White British adopters wanting White British children.
The gov't knows this and identify a need to address it; contrary to what you have suggested, in fact. It's the 'suitable remedies' I have reservations about.
i.e; someone adopting a particular child to meet a political agenda-as opposed to for the right reasons.
redana: RachelL: It's probably an obvious one, but my earlier posting gave a big clue; Based on this Department of Education summary, the adoption process for black children takes 50% longer . So, how about this; find out why and if suitable remedies for this disparity can be found, implement them. RachelL, I'm very aware of the statistics...did you read my post? As I'm agreeing the process on average takes longer. RE, why; well, I am arguing that there are fewer BME adopters coming forward....and sorry to spell it out...but this is why BME children wait longer to be adopted. Lots of BME children waiting, lots of White British adopters wanting White British children. The gov't knows this and identify a need to address it; contrary to what you have suggested, in fact. It's the 'suitable remedies' I have reservations about. i.e; someone adopting a particular child to meet a political agenda-as opposed to for the right reasons.
so have you seen a drop in quality in foster care since greater financial rewrdsd were offered? not having a dig Im genuinely interested