The Modernisation Programme

Adoption Conference 2013Plymouth University

The Modernisation Programme in

Plymouth Torbay and West Devonby

Her Honour Judge RobertshawDesignated Family Judge for

PlymouthTorbay 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 court31A 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 CBEChief Executive, Cafcass

Wednesday 22nd May 2013

Adoption: then and nowThen 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: past , present and future

Anthony Douglas CBEChief Executive, Cafcass

Wednesday 22nd May 2013

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-level or any broken high malaise psychiatric 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 psychological 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 269-280Dance 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.pdfJones, 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 BAAFSteele, 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

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/JCO/Documents/FJC/Decision_making_within_a_childs_timeframe_Oct_2012_CWRC_WP_16.pdf

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/JCO/Documents/FJC/Decision_making_within_a_childs_timeframe_Oct_2012_CWRC_WP_16.pdf


Any Questions??

The Modernisation Programme

Documents

Transcript of The Modernisation Programme