By Mithran Samuel on November 12, 2024 in Children, Social work leaders
Despite evidence of benefits of face-to-face post-adoption contact for children, it is the exception not the rule, finds report, which recommends changes to both adoption and child protection practice
Image: bsd studio/Adobe Stock
Social work practice changes are needed to engineer a shift towards much greater direct contact between adopted children and their birth families, experts have said.
The call came in a report that urged an overhaul of the current “outdated” approach to post-adoption contact in order to enable more face-to-face time between children and their birth relatives.
Despite evidence of the benefits of face-to-face post-adoption contact for children’s sense of identity, it is the exception not the rule in England and Wales, said the report, which was commissioned by family courts president Sir Andrew McFarlane.
Instead, most children only had indirect, “letterbox contact”, in which adoptive parents and birth families exchange information by letter once or twice a year, said the public law working group adoption sub-group.
In calling for a shift to much more direct contact, the group – which included representation from local government, Cafcass, the law, academia and the adoption sector – recommended significant practice changes for both adoption and child protection social workers.
But while the report was broadly welcomed by sector leaders, concerns were raised about there being a lack of support to underpin safe and effective contact.
Legal framework for post-adoption contact
Under the Adoption and Children Act 2002, the courts are required to consider whether anyone should have post-adoption contact with a child before making an adoption order (section 46(6)). They may also make orders requiring or prohibiting contact, including with the child’s birth family (section 51A).
However, the report said case law and anecdotal reports suggested section 51A orders were rarely used.
Also, while the courts may make orders for contact when a child is placed for adoption (section 26), Sir Andrew said that these were also rare, in a speech last year.
Problems with letterbox contact
The adoption sub-group said that, as a result, letterbox contact was the predominant form of post-adoption contact, despite the fact that it could prove problematic.
“A high number of arrangements stall as a result of one (or both) parties failing to maintain the arrangement,” said the report.
“This leaves many adoptees without any effective contact from birth families.”
Face-to-face contact ‘helps adoptees’ sense of identity’
At the same time, the research base was supportive of face-to-face contact, said the sub-group.
The report found “strong indications” that face-to-face contact helped adoptees “develop a sense of identity, accept the reasons why they were adopted and move forward with their lives”.
There was also “considerable evidence” that openness around the circumstances of the adoptee’s birth family was beneficial to the child, while the report also highlighted the “enduring sense of loss” that could occur from separating siblings.
However, it added that ensuring contact was safe was “pivotal to positive outcomes”.
Promoting direct contact when safe and in best interests
The report’s key recommendation was for a “tailormade approach” to contact for each child, which “promotes face-to-face contact with important individuals in that child’s life if it can be safely achieved and is in the child’s best interests”.
“It is recognised that this will not be safe for all adopted children, but the current system whereby face-to-face contact is the exception rather than the rule is outdated,” it added.
To support its preferred approach, issues around contact should be considered prior to any proceedings for the child, the report said.
Proposals for child protection practice
It said child protection social workers should identify relationships that are, or may be, important to the child during family group conferences or pre-proceedings, building on the existing process of identifying alternative carers.
It said this would provide “an early understanding of the child’s network and of who may be able to offer a positive perspective should direct post adoption contact be considered appropriate at the end of proceedings“.
These relationships should be set out in an “ecomap” – a visual tool setting out the network around the child – which should be prepared alongside the mandatory genogram for the social work evidence template, filed as part of court applications.
Early liaison with adoption social workers urged
The sub-group said there should be “specific guidance as to the prospective roles of child protection social workers and adoption social workers including a clear expectation of when they will begin liaising“.
The report backed child protection practitioners liaising with a named adoption social worker as soon as adoption was contemplated, to enable “an early exchange of information, a consultation around proposed contact plans and a smooth transition should a placement order be made”.
This would give the adoption social worker a clear understanding of the child’s networks.
Practice during care and placement proceedings
During proceedings for care and placement orders, social workers should further investigate which family members would be best placed to have contact with the child after adoption and carry out an assessment of anyone identified.
Practitioners should consider all possible forms of contact and balance the welfare benefits for the child against any safeguarding issues. They should then make a recommendation to the court in the final social work statement filed in care and placement order proceedings.
The social worker’s evidence should consider practical issues, such as frequency, duration and location, in the case of face-to-face contact, and the use of digital platforms, in the case of letterbox contact.
Alongside the provisional recommendations for contact, practitioners should draw up a draft contact support plan for the court’s consideration before the making of a placement order.
This would form part of the child’s adoption support plan that would be subsequently drawn up with the prospective adoptive parents.
Addressing concerns of prospective adopters
A key barrier to contact between adopted children and birth families has been the prospect of opposition from adoptive parents.
The report did not propose that contact be ordered routinely “in the face of opposition from adoptive parents”, in line with case law.
However, it suggested opposition was “much less likely where adoptive parents are given a thorough understanding of the child’s needs right at the start and are given the right support”.
It said documents shared with prospective adopters about the birth family should be “balanced”, highlighting the positives as well as the negatives of their parenting, along with any mitigating factors.
Consideration should be given, in every case, to a meeting between the adopters and members of the birth family.
Bringing forward life story work
The report also said adopters would benefit from having life story books, including reference to all those people who have been identified as important to the child, available at the earliest possible opportunity.
While regulations in England specify that these should be available within 10 days of an adoption order being made, the report said it should be produced by the time of the order.
It said practitioners should agree on who should produce the book and set a timetable for doing so at the placement order stage.
Key ongoing role for adoption social workers
Should contact be recommended, adoption social workers should have an ongoing role working with the families to monitor how well it is going, offering periodic reviews of contact plans.
“They may need to re-evaluate the birth family’s ability to participate in contact or the adoptive family’s ability to support it, on an on-going basis,” the report said.
“They will need to formulate the ‘rules’ around contact and manage expectations.”
Sir Andrew welcomed the report’s recommendations, though stressed that arrangements around contact “must be determined by the needs of the individual child”.
Recommendations ‘reflect existing work by adoption sector’
Adoption England, the body that supports regional adoption agencies (RAAs), said the recommendations were in tune with work already underway by the sector to “improve how adopted children stay in touch with their birth families in a supported, safe and meaningful way”.
One of the outcomes from its 2024-27 strategy is that adopted people “maintain relationships with people important to them and have a good understanding of the reasons why they were adopted”.
This includes testing the use of digital contact platforms and some RAAs piloting Lifelong Links, a programme developed by the Family Rights Group (FRG) to support children in care to have lasting relationships.
Adoption England’s national strategic lead, Sarah Johal, said: “We also understand some of the complexities and challenges around this, so this is a journey, but we are making good progress supporting professionals, adoptive parents and birth families, with the safety and wellbeing of the child at the centre of our approach.”
Current position is ‘archaic’
For the FRG, chief executive Cathy Ashley said the current position was “archaic” and that the adoption sub-group’s recommendations were “a hugely important step in modernising adoption processes in England and Wales”.
“The permanent separation between adopted children and their birth family, often leaves children with unanswered questions and a sense of loss, that can last a lifetime,” she added.
“All too often we hear from birth parents who are told to keep the annual letterbox contact letters that they are permitted to send to their children ‘factual and light’, and that they cannot even tell the children that they love them.”
Support for contact ‘at best patchy, at worst non-existent’
Adoption UK said that more adopted children should have opportunities for contact with their birth family because of the benefits “safe and well managed contact” can bring in helping them “understand their life story and stay connected to important people in their lives”.
However, the charity’s chief executive, Emily Frith, warned: “Contact has to be meaningful and safe for the child and if it’s not well managed it can be harmful for them, both in childhood and into adulthood. At the moment, support for managing relationships between birth family and adoptive families is at best patchy, at worst non-existent.
She added: “There is an urgent need for radical change in support for contact – including funding for specialist support workers to help everyone involved.”
‘Careful balance needed between benefits and risks’
The Association of Directors of Children’s Services (ADCS) gave the proposals a cautious response.
“Enabling contact between a child and their birth family must be carefully managed and incorporating different methods of communication is part of that,” said Helen Lincoln, chair of its families, communities and young people policy committee.
“Digital contact pilots are currently being led by adoption leaders, but a careful balance must be struck between both the benefits and risks for the child.”
Government ‘to carefully consider findings’
Meanwhile, a Department for Education spokesperson said: “We know that adoption has a profound impact on everyone involved, and it’s vital that the child’s best interests are protected and remain at the heart of the process.
“This report offers an important review of the system, and we will carefully consider its findings and recommendations.”
Comments