Agenda item

To consider:

·         Current developments in adoption, fostering and special guardianship, including recruitment of in-house foster carers and other performance issues;

·         Planned reforms under the Education & Adoption Bill going through Parliament and their implications for Haringey, including regionalisation of adoption; and

·         How the voice of the child is taken into account.

Dominic Porter-Moore, the Head of Service, Children in Care and Placements, reported that the Munby judgement continued to impact on placement orders and adoption plans.  It was now very difficult to get a Placement Order.  Special Guardianship Orders were now being made increasingly on younger children than was originally envisaged. There were now more adopters than children requiring adoption.  Specific work was being undertaken by the Council to persuade adopters to consider older children and those who were harder to place.  Adoptions were also taking longer to go through Court as birth parents were increasingly being allowed to challenge orders.  One positive development was that the government had now provided additional funding for post adoption therapeutic support.

It was noted that the Coram Adoption charity had undertaken an adoption diagnostic on Haringey in August 2015, which had identified a mixed picture.  It highlighted some significant recent improvements in the number of children adopted but also identified areas for development. Avoidable delay was not found to be a prominent feature. However, work to respond to the findings had been overtaken by the regionalisation agenda.

Mr Porter-Moore reported that the Council’s contract with NRS to improve the fostering process had not been as successful as anticipated. It had been negotiated in 2013/14 and had been found to be poorly constructed, with no effective oversight or clear targets.   They had focussed attention primarily on the adoption of babies and young children.  Disappointing outcomes had been delivered, which were very similar to those that had previously been achieved by the in-house team.  Various options were being considered in response to this, including renewing the contract, re-tendering or setting up an in-house team.

He stated that the government was keen to promote the development of regional adoption agencies, who would undertake recruitment, matching and support functions.  It was as yet not fully clear what the impact on Haringey would be but there was a risk of redundancies.  However, fostering would no longer be inhibited by borough boundaries and it might also assist in increasing the range of therapeutic options available by freeing up resources.  It was nevertheless possible that the anticipated improvements might not materialise.  Information sharing protocols were already well established with other local authorities and adopters. 

In terms of how the voice of the child was heard, software had now been developed to allow children to pass on their views via a Smartphone or a laptop.  In addition, views were also received from Aspire, the Complaints and Representation Service and Guardians.

In answer to a question, Mr Porter-Moore stated that relationships between social workers and children had been improved by there being a larger base of permanent social workers.  In the past, there had more frequently been changes of social worker which could prevent a good relationship being developed.  Most foster carers were from black and ethnic minority communities and there had been success in finding ones from a wide range of communities.  Work to develop stronger relationships with Moslem communities was being undertaken as the majority of unaccompanied children came from Moslem countries.

There was no formal monitoring of the success of adoptions but adopters often did not wish to have further involvement with the local authority.   Adopters could nevertheless request further support if the felt that they could benefit from it.  Research had shown that approximately 3 out of 100 adoptions were disrupted.  Mr Porter-Moore agreed to provide the Panel with data on the number of disruptions that there had been involving Haringey children in the last five years.

In answer to a question, he stated that Special Guardianship Orders were intended for older children than many of those that were currently subject to them.  They could work very well as they enabled children to remain within the family but there had been an increase in cases where the Council was forced to intervene. 

He reported that there was a wide range of adopters, including same sex couples.  However, there were currently no adopters with disabilities although this would not prevent them being considered. 

In answer to a question, he reported that it was normally the Courts who directed birth parents to give up their children.  Although they were encouraged to seek support, they were very unlikely to approach the local authority for this.   Regionalisation could assist with this as it would be different body to the one that had sought the order from the Court. There were currently 6 cases in Haringey where children were being considered for adoption and their birth parents had previously had other children removed from their care.  If the new child came in quick succession after the previous child, the Court could decide to remove it.  If there was a gap, it was not automatic and the local authority would have to provide a case.

AGREED:

That the Head of Service, Children in Care and Placements be requested to provide the Panel with data on the number of adoptions of Haringey children that had been disrupted in the past five years.