BASW hit back against report criticising their approach to adoptions

BASW has criticised comments by the government’s new adoption tsar Martin Narey, in which the former head of Barnardo’s urged the children’s minister to refocus the role of social workers and ‘ensure that the role of the social worker as the unequivocal protector of the interests of the child as opposed to that of friend of the family’.

In a report for The Times newspaper, Mr Narey called for a cultural shift in social worker attitudes towards adoption. He said social workers ‘sometimes forget that they are the champion of what is best for the child, even though that may not be in the parents’ interests. Some social workers seem unable to get this balance right and some may not have the competences’.

The assertions prompted a strong response from BASW. “Those who suggest social workers are anti-adoption don’t know very much about social work,” Nushra Mansuri, BASW professional officer, said. “The idea that the social work profession is anti-adoption is ludicrous and insulting to highly skilled workers who work tirelessly, in the current climate of pay cuts and staff shortages, to ensure successful placements are achieved for children. Many of our most experienced social workers choose to work in adoption teams as this is a highly valued specialism and they undertake their work with pride and dedication.”

Mr Narey’s report also calls for adoption to be given ‘greater prominence on social work training’ and suggests consideration of ‘how the contribution of unqualified staff can be better utilised in child protection work’. He recommends that the ‘overwhelming evidence that care improves life for neglected and abused children be communicated to local authority and voluntary sector children’s staff’ and proposes league tables to monitor council adoption rates. He says the children’s minister Tim Loughton should ‘make it plain to local authorities that the option of a national adoption agency will be pursued unless there is an across-the-board increase in adoptions and the speed of those adoptions’.

BASW made clear its view that Mr Narey was offering an unfair picture of adoption and fostering arrangements in many local authorities in England. Highlighting the positive work carried out over the past decade in successfully placing children with members of their extended family when their parents are unable to care for them, the Association said there is significant evidence for the benefits of kinship care as a clear alternative, in some instances, to adoption.

Ms Mansuri said: “Clearly, it is not about a ‘one size fits all’ approach. The primary objective of social workers is to promote the best interest of children and work in a child-centred way and that does not mean parents who have made mistakes in all cases should immediately be written off.

“In some situations, with the right intervention and support, parents can turn their lives around and get back on track in order to be able to safely and appropriately care for their children and this absolutely must not be overlooked. Before the 1989 Children Act, local authorities were seen as too quick to remove children from their families; it is critical that we learn from this and do not allow the pendulum to swing back. We need to constantly assess current practice in order to develop it in terms of its quality and outcomes.”

BASW also warned that ‘naming and shaming’ local authorities and publishing league tables indicates more of the target driven, blame culture which the recent Munro report into child protection identifies as debilitating good practice.