Agenda item
Adoption Services in Brent
The purpose of this report is to provide an update on the key issues relating to adoption in Brent and to give members an opportunity to ask questions in relation to adoption services.
Minutes:
The Chair advised that she had requested this report due to the current public focus on Adoption and the recent publication of performance data regarding Local Authorities Adoption Services.
Graham Genoni (Assistant Director Social Care Division) presented a report updating the committee on key issues relating to Adoption Services in Brent. It was noted that whilst the information released in November 2011 by the Department for Education (DfE) had encompassed a range of performance data, attention had principally focused on the timeliness of adoptions against which Brent had not performed well. This performance indicator measured the percentage of children placed for adoption within 12 months of a decision for adoption being made. A range of factors influencing this indicator were outlined to the committee and these included the age of the child; whether the child was part of a sibling group; the length of the legal proceedings; and the complexity of the child’s needs.
In expanding upon these factors, Graham Genoni highlighted that contrary to popular understanding, the number of young babies waiting to be placed for adoption was comparatively few. Rather, babies tended to be placed quickly and any delays were generally attributable to the court process. Often, the circumstances of the children being placed for adoption could make the process of identifying suitable placements for those children far more difficult and this was particularly so for children part of sibling groups or with complex needs. The department worked hard to minimise delays for children. Consequently, the option of placing siblings separately would be considered if required and if a suitable placement for children with complex needs was not found within a set period, alternative care plans would be pursued. The council had recognised the need to identify more prospective adopters and at present was assessing 21 prospective families; this represented a significant increase on the 9 families who were assessed during the previous year.
Graham Genoni advised that significant delay was also caused for these children by the length of the legal proceedings to which they were subject. Delay caused by legal proceedings had increased in recent years and this had been recognised within the final report of the Family Justice Review group. That report recommended that urgent action be taken to reduce the average length of legal proceedings from over 1 year to 6 months.
Graham Genoni further explained that adoption was only one of the options pursued by the local authority in securing the permanent placement of children with alternative carers. Special Guardianship Order (SGO) was an option which was increasingly relied upon by local authorities. SGOs did not remove the birth parents’ rights in quite the same way as in adoption and for this reason, it could be a preferable option both for prospective carers and the child in question. It was emphasised to the committee that when SGOs were taken into consideration alongside adoptions, Brent had performed above its statistical neighbours. It was emphasised that matching between children and their carers was carefully undertaken within Brent as reflected in the fact that there had been only one adoptive placement breakdown in the preceding two years. In response to a query, Graham Genoni explained that SGOs were thought to be a more attractive option to some communities as they tended to reflect some traditional family childcare arrangements.
In the subsequent discussion, members raised several issues. Councillor Gladbaum sought clarity regarding the reference at paragraph 2.3 to cases which begin to ‘drift’. Graham Genoni explained that this was a subjective judgement but that a care plan for a child would be given a set period of either 3 or 6 months after which time it was reviewed. If it was deemed necessary at the review an alternative plan might be pursued. Graham Genoni noted that in the government’s view local authorities focused too greatly upon identifying a suitable ethnic match for a child, to the detriment of the timescales for achieving a permanent placement. However, whilst attempts would be made to secure an appropriate ethnic match, it would not prevent the authority from placing a child with carers who could meet the majority of the child’s range of needs.
With reference to paragraph 2.5 of the report, the Chair noted that it was reported that approximately 25% more children were now being placed permanently compared to 5 years previously and sought further detail regarding this. Graham Genoni confirmed that the local authority reported annually on the number of adoption and SGO placements and for 2010, 26 children had been placed. It was predicted that 30 children would be placed for 2011. The use of SGOs had increased within recent years and were a particularly popular option in London boroughs. No London borough had appeared in the top quarter with regard to adoption timeliness and it was felt this was a reflection of the differences between London and other parts of the country.
The Chair noted that additional performance data was due to be published by the DfE in December 2011 and queried if this was now available. Graham Genoni advised that this information had not yet been published.
In response to a further query Graham Genoni advised that the way in which looked after children were cared for had changed within the last 20 years, with the numbers of children’s home/residential care facilities for children being drastically reduced across the country. At present, Brent had no residential care facilities for children. The local authority attempted to keep the number of children within residential units low both due to the expense but also the view that all other alternatives should first be explored. Currently there were approximately only 30 Brent children in residential units. Children would only be cared for in a residential unit if their behaviour was so difficult that a fostering placement would not be sustainable and this would be concluded only after several foster placements broke down.
Councillor Ashraf queried what support was provided to parents in relation to SGOs and whether children subject to an SGO ever returned to their birth family. Graham Genoni clarified that when an SGO was explored it meant that a permanency decision regarding the child had been made and the child would almost never return to the care of their parents. This stage would have only been reached following assessments of the parents, expert assessments and court proceedings. Graham Genoni emphasised that the local authority did not remove children from their parent’s care readily and rather worked extremely hard to support families to ensure that children are safe in their parents care.
Councillor Ashraf queried whether community and religious organisations were approached in seeking suitable adoptive families. Graham Genoni confirmed that the department worked with a wide range of organisations including religious and community organisations to raise awareness and interest in adoption and fostering. Councillors confirmed that they would happily distribute literature or posters to organisations with which they worked to support the borough’s drive for further adoptive families and foster carers.
Referring to paragraph 2.11, Councillor HB Patel noted that the local authority had had one adoptive placement breakdown in the preceding two years and queried why it had broken down. Graham Genoni advised that he was not aware of the specific circumstances but that common reasons included difficult behaviour and separation of the adoptive parents. To have only 1 adoption breakdown in 2 years was very positive.
RESOLVED: -
That the report be noted.
Supporting documents: