Agenda item

 The Committee to consider and endorse this policy in December 2012  with a view to informing the development of a clear policy statement on how best to secure permanent placements for children within the care system. Report to follow

 The Committee had previously considered an early version of the permanency policy at their September meeting. Following this meeting research had been distributed to Committee members on the permanency options of adoption, special guardianship and long term foster care placements. This was to assist Members in structuring lines of enquiry to form a view on the proposed permanency policy.

 Since consideration of the earlier draft, some legal context had also been added to the explanation of the permanency options of adoption, special guardianship and long term foster care which gave members a better understanding of the council’s legal role for the care of the child/young person in their care.

The assessment method for sibling groups was set out which  was according to the number of children  in their sibling group and their age and gave an idea to the committee of the type of thinking involved in planning permanency options and how each child’s need is considered.

This policy would next go to Cabinet in June 2013 for agreement and it would need to contain the endorsement of  the Corporate Parenting Committee about early permamancy planning. Adoption and Special Guardianship were the preferred options for permanency as they were most likely to provide a stable home and future for the child beyond the age of 18. The Committee were asked  to provide their direction on the proposed approaches to the  adoption of sibling groups  and  level of importance given  to  the finding of  ethnic matches  for children  where adoption was the  best permanency option.

 In response to how much influence this Committee could have on the  process of adoption, it was explained  that ultimately the process of adoption was governed by a legal framework but Members  could provide officers with the steer about the   priority for adoption.   In considering  the approach set out ,members  sought an understanding on  number of cases where the plans for adoption had changed because of   difficulties with finding an ethnically matched family or keeping a sibling groups together.  It was explained that the number was small. However, the committee could help with endorsing  and encouraging the examination of adoption as a permanency option at the outset from when a child/young person is identified as not being safe to stay at home(usually at the Core Assessment stage).This would adoption as an option to be explored from an early stage alongside other permanency options.

The Committee considered paragraph 7.5 of the report on planning for permanence and assessment of sibling groups.  The Committee agreed the wording of this  and  felt it could be emphasised that siblings who are looked after should be placed together whenever possible although it was recognised that in some cases this will not be appropriate.

 In relation to ethnically matching children to families ,it was explained that  the service were not holding out for exact ethnics matches for children needing adoption .  They were considering  how the adopted child will feel as they get older and so  trying to  broadly  ethnically match  as  far as possible  without causing delays that will have a detrimental impact on a child ‘s present  emotional wellbeing. 

The Chair reflected that the security of the adoptive child is an essential consideration as this will impact on and how the child feels in a family they are placed with. However, there is a need to be clear that getting a family for the child is important and should be a dual consideration. The committee accepted that the  Children’s service continues to endeavour to meet the child’s needs  and that  adoptions cases continue to be dealt with on a case by case basis  ensuring that  consideration is given to  keeping the child in care for as  short a time as possible.   This is accordance with care planning, placement and review regulations as set out in paragraph 5.4.

In looking at the placement options, the Chair queried how long young people were likely to remain in this type of care given that this was not a long term preferred option for care. The Director for Children’s services reiterated that children should have a secure, stable, and loving family to support them through childhood and beyond. Residential care was not a long term option but sometimes this option could suit a young person who has had a too many bad experiences  in a family environment. However, it was still important for the young person to have left residential care after one year.