Councils not doing enough to encourage adoption, claims Gove

Education Secretary Michael Gove has reignited the debate on adoption, claiming that local authorities have failed to remove ethnicity as a barrier to matching potential adopters with children.

Ahead of the government’s adoption action plan, due to be published next month, Gove reiterated concerns around low adoption numbers and delays and bureaucracy in the assessment process.

He praised the three-part BBC documentary Protecting our Children for bringing “balance to the media conversation about social work”, saying that the government now has a “more mature” relationship with social workers. However, he added that efforts must be ramped up to increase the number of adoptions.
Click here to find out more!

“My overriding approach to government is to leave well alone when things are going well,” he said. “But when things go wrong then we should intervene, early and energetically, to put things right.

“The number of children adopted in England last year was the lowest since 2001. These figures are even more remarkable when the number of children finding permanent routes out of care has actually increased. And we need to be careful that alternative solutions like special guardianship or residence orders are not used as a substitute for adoption when it would be the best option for a particular child.”

He added that councils had failed to take government advice following revised guidance which removed ethnicity as a barrier to adoption.

“I won’t deny that an ethnic match between adopters and child can be a bonus,” he said. “But it is outrageous to deny a child the chance of adoption because of a misguided belief that race is more important than any other factor. And although the new guidance I issued to local authorities last year explicitly addressed this issue, evidence suggests that too many have failed to change their practice.”

Gove also emphasised the urgency of removing unnecessary bureaucracy facing potential adopters.

“We have been overwhelmed by stories from adopters and prospective adopters, telling us that the current system actively drives them away,” he said. “When so many children are in such desperate need of a loving home, and are waiting for months and years to find one, how can we treat would-be adopters this way?”

David Simmonds, chair of the Local Government Association’s (LGA) children and young people board, said local authorities are seeking permanent homes for children wherever possible.

“We acknowledge that there is a variation in performance across councils and recognise that at times the system has been risk averse, but we want to work with government to change that and remove barriers that delay decisions, including tackling the significant delays in the family courts,” he said.

“Ensuring a child is in the best possible long-term home cannot be tackled through a one-size-fits-all approach. Adoption is right for some children, but for others long-term stability might best be found with friends and family through special guardianship.

“The LGA and its partners are also developing an £8m programme that will encourage children’s services professionals to share information on what works. Helping councils to improve adoption processes will be a key part of this.”

But Nushra Mansuri, professional officer at the British Association of Social Workers, hit out at Gove’s latest speech, saying it was another attack on social workers.

“The government regurgitating the same platitudes about adoption that we have already heard three times in the past four months is a demoralising assault on social workers and local authorities,” she said.

“How is the government expecting that assessments will be speeded up when there are not enough social workers around to do them.

“Yes, let’s cut out any unnecessary delays, but it is entirely right that assessment of a child’s future and best interests is a painstaking, sensitive process, undertaken by experts.

“Mr Gove’s glib pronouncements suggest that caution be thrown to the wind with less rigour being applied to the assessment process, removing vital checks and balances.”