CHURCH OF SCOTLAND Church and Society Council 121 George Street, Edinburgh, EH2 4YN Tel: 0131 225 5722 Fax: 0131 240 2239 email churchandsociety@cofscotland.org.uk Official Response SUBJECT ADOPTION AND FOSTERING CONSULTATION REQUESTED BY SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE REFERENCE OR4-2005 C&S DATE 31 OCTOBER 2005 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Church of Scotland (through its Church and Society Council) welcomes the opportunity to respond to the consultation on "Safe and Secure Homes for our Most Vulnerable Children". In preparing this response, we have been helped by an initial conversation with Ministers and by a consultation meeting (hosted by the Scottish Churches Parliamentary Office) at which members of the Bill team and Review Group discussed the proposals with representatives of faith communities. 1. The Executive welcomes general comments on the recommendations of the Group and the Executive's proposed responses. Views on those recommendations requiring legislation are particularly welcome. We respond in the context of major changes in the circumstances of adoption, and recognise as the driving force for change a dramatic change in patterns since the 1978 Act was passed: growing numbers of looked after children, falling numbers of adoptions, and the rising age profile of children seeking adoptive parents (with the number of babies being placed for adoption in Scotland now under 20 annually, from nearly 300 20 years ago). As Cardinal O'Brien has said, "There is no doubt that the current system fails to meet children’s needs. According to official figures, adoption applications (from prospective adopters) in the past 20 years have fallen from 1,000 a year to less than 400, while 6,500 children are in the care of local authorities. Many are in care for long periods." In light of this situation, we strongly support the principle that the best interests of children are paramount here. We would also reaffirm the Church's view that the stable environment of care which children need is best provided in the context of marriage. Appreciating the realities of what options are available, we were disappointed to be told that other non-legislative proposals for seeking to recruit more adoptive parents (which were contained in the first phase of the review) do not appear to have been effectively prioritised. We recognise that much needs to be done in building a national recruitment strategy and we recognise that churches can play a significant part in this. Foster care is sometimes not properly valued, and more foster carers are also needed. Indeed, the commitment to children that is involved in short-term fostering often leads those involved as carers on to long-term fostering – yet this contributes to the shortage of short-term carers as the placements get ‘blocked’ by carers ‘converting’ to long-term care. We were also disappointed that there seems little research basis for some of the Review Group's proposals, particularly in some of the more controversial areas. For example, analysis of what holds people back from offering as prospective adopters or foster carers (and what might encourage others to offer) could inform a more focussed national approach to recruitment; we would hope that more work will be done on this, and in monitoring the outcome of the proposed changes if and when enacted. However, we do want to express our broad support for the urgency of finding new solutions which serve the best interests of the vulnerable children for whom at present we seem unable to provide the safe and secure nurture they need. We therefore agree that adoption should remain an option, and hope that Permanence Orders can provide extra stability where adoption is not an available or appropriate option. We also welcome the emphasis on the needs and interests of the children in seeking an environment of care; there is no right to adopt. Recognising the need to recruit more potential adoptive parents (while retaining robust selection processes) and the reality that children are currently being adopted by individuals who are living in (opposite or same sex) relationships that are considered as relevant to the adoption by the agencies involved, we can see some force in giving legal recognition to the realities of these situations, which might also enhance their stability, to the long-term benefit of adopted children. However, there are many within the Church who see these proposals as giving equality of status to different relationships which are not equivalent. As a signal, therefore, they may be seen as undermining marriage, at a time when supporting the long-term mutual commitment which marriage best embodies (with a generally higher "success rate" of stability than other relationships) would clearly serve the interests of children. There are also research findings (mentioned in the Review Group's report) which suggest significant problems faced by children brought up by gay couples. Given that the alternatives for many children under the present legislation are far from ideal, often involving successive short-term fostering, we would, on balance, support the proposals to allow unmarried or unregistered couples (of different sexes or of the same sex) to adopt jointly. While we therefore do not believe that the status of the relationship between adult potential adopters should be an absolute bar to them adopting jointly, we would hope that there would be explicit recognition that no "right to adopt" is created by the Bill, and that, therefore, the stability and "enduring nature" of the relationship are appropriately part of a robust selection process which recognises the dangers for children if adoption is not by those in a "stable and strong relationship". Similar considerations apply to fostering. 2. The Executive welcomes views on any aspects of adoption and permanence law not covered in the Group's report which should be reflected in future legislation. The social trends which impact on the adoption statistics reflect the costs of family and relationship breakdown. As with the Family Law Bill, while recognising the need for legislation to address changed patterns, we believe that these costs – especially to vulnerable children – demand more strategic action by the Executive and others to look at the causes of relationship breakdown and how a wide range of policies impact on families for good or ill. 3. The Executive would welcome views on the appropriate definition of an unmarried (or unregistered) couple for a Scottish court to apply in deciding whether to make a joint adoption order, bearing in mind the Executive's intention that the court should consider the enduring nature of the relationship. (Recs 6 and 7) It is in the interests of the child to become part of an "enduring family relationship" and, on the basis outlined above, we would support use of the current English definition. 4. The Executive would welcome views on whether there should be a power for Ministers to make regulations to ensure that, in determining the suitability of a couple to adopt a child, proper regard is had to the need for stability and permanence in their relationship. (Recs 6 and 7) Since the stability and permanence of the relationship of joint adopters is an important ingredient of the long-term well-being of the child, it is important for Ministers to ensure that proper regard is had to this (as is the case elsewhere in the UK). 5. There are other issues raised by the proposal on which the Executive would welcome views: * What other factors should the court take into account in deciding whether an unmarried couple should adopt a child? For example, should the views of birth parents or the child be considered? * Should there be any exceptions or special rules, for example for faith-based adoption agencies? * Should the Executive issue guidance on considerations to be examined in determining the best interests of the child, and what might such considerations be? (Recs 6 and 7) While there are circumstances in which the views of birth parents may not be conclusive, their views on adoption by an unmarried couple should be considered. Where birth parents feel their views are taken into account, adoption is less likely to be an acrimonious issue. The weight given to the child's views on this, as on other issues, should be appropriate to her/his age. If it is clear that no right to adopt is created by the legislation, there may be no need for any "exceptions or special rules". However, it should be clear that adoption agencies may make judgments as to the suitability of adoptive parents which reflect their own values, and these should not detract from their funding by local or national government; otherwise, adoption agencies, if forced to go against their principles, may go out of business, achieving the opposite of the intended effect by taking from the currently available options agencies currently recognised as offering a high standard of care. We would be concerned that any prescription of factors might prove inflexible, but guidance might be helpful. We believe that Children's Hearings or other special courts are better equipped to deal with recognition of children's best interests than the mainstream court system. 6. The Executive would welcome views on the issues on which parental views should be sought in placing a child for adoption. (eg wider issues of identity, such as language and culture, could be included in a revised provision). (Rec 11) We would support the retention of the existing provision for the views of birth parents on the religious upbringing of children to be given due weight, in the context of the basic principle that the child's interests are paramount. Other aspects of parental views might also helpfully be considered. Permanence Order 7. The Executive would welcome views on the principle and details of the Permanence Order, in particular any practical or procedural issues that might arise from use of the Orders, and how these can best be addressed. (Recommendations 19 - 25) So long as Permanence Orders are not seen as an alternative to adoption, we believe that they may offer stability in situations where adoption might not be possible, but we would be concerned if they were to encourage less urgency in seeking adoptive parents. 8. The Executive would welcome views on the role of the hearing system in Permanence Orders, in particular any practical difficulties that would be raised by the recommendations and further suggestions on how the special arrangements that have been made for children on permanence orders can be recognised by the hearing system. (Recommendations 28 and 29) We believe that the hearing system is well placed to have a key role in Permanence Orders, and that this will be most effective if the hearing system is involved at an early stage. Support for Adoption 9. The Executive would welcome views on what additional adoption support services might be prescribed. We believe strongly that better resourced adoption support could encourage more adoptive parents to come forward. We support the Review Group recommendation that adoption support services should be "counselling, advice, information and financial support, as well as other services prescribed by regulation". 10. The Executive would welcome views on the recommendation that local authorities should have an adoption support officer within the senior management team. (Rec 38) We would warmly welcome this as an effective means of ensuring that this is prioritised. 11. The Executive would welcome views on the recommendation that a local authority placing a child for adoption should have responsibility for providing adoption support services to the child and the adoptive family for three years after the adoption order, in particular whether the period of three years is appropriate. (Rec 41) The best interests of the child should determine which local authority provides support; this might suggest that the local authority in which the child is living might assume responsibility at an earlier stage than three years. 12. The Executive would welcome views on how widespread any entitlement to adoption support should be - for example, should grandparents and siblings have a right to support - and what services different groups of people should receive, for example should birth relatives have a right to any services beyond counselling. (Rec 42) We believe that grandparents and siblings should have a right to request support, and that this should be offered by local authorities, but not automatically provided unless requested. Curators, Reporting Officers and Safeguarders 16. The Executive would welcome views on the recommendation that there should be a centralised national system to appoint and train curators, reporting officers, and safeguarders from which individual case appointments are made locally. (Rec 61) We would encourage national provision especially of training. Fostering Issues 18. The Executive would welcome views on the options for a national scale of fostering allowances. (Rec 76) Much valuable work is done by skilled short-term carers and they do provide a needed resource, coping with distressed and traumatised children and supporting families in ways that help them stay together or help the children return home. We therefore believe that resources should be put into recruiting more foster carers and training them for their task; adequate allowances are also part of the strategy necessary for an effective fostering service, and we consider that a national minimum (set to pay for the cost of caring for a child), along with a requirement on local authorities to publish and justify local variations would be most effective in achieving this. 19. The Executive would welcome views on the proposed working group on private fostering, and what the remit of such a group might be. (Rec 85) We would want to resist commercialisation of fostering, and therefore believe that the proposed working group should focus on quality assurance and standards of care. Access to Information 21. The Executive would welcome views on the proposal that medical information about birth parents and families should be shared, without consent, to plan properly for a child. Particular issues include: what sort of information could be shared; who could have access to the information; and whether any information should be communicated to the adopted person or the adoptive parents. (Recs 103 – 106) While it seems to be in the best interests of children for medical information about their birth parents to be shared, none of us have any right to such information about our parents. Good practice guidelines should encourage such information as is available to be passed to adoptive parents, who would then have discretion as to what to tell their children. Consultation Questions Not Answered Above Improving Court Procedures and Avoiding Delays 13. The Executive would welcome views on whether a system of leave to apply to court would be effective in providing the protection from repeated or vexatious applications for children and adoptive families. (Recommendations 26, 51 and 52) 14. The Executive would also welcome views on whether other statutory measures would make the system of leave a more effective safeguard. For example: * Should the legislation require the applicant to produce new evidence, or evidence of a significant change in circumstances to support an application for leave? * Should there be a minimum period between new applications for leave in respect of the same child? (Recs 26, 51 and 52) 15. The Executive would welcome views on whether legislation should limit the circumstances in which an applicant could seek information about an adopted child in support of an application to court. (Recs 26, 51 and 52) Role of the Children’s Hearing System in Permanence Cases 17. The Executive would welcome views on the stage in permanence planning at which there should be a statutory requirement on the local authority to inform the children's hearing of its intention. The Executive would also welcome views on the steps to be followed after the hearing is informed of the local authority's intention, for example the model currently used when a decision is taken to place a child for adoption. (Recs 62 - 71) Procedures within local authorities and agencies 20. The Executive would welcome views on the detailed proposals of the Group on local authority and adoption agency procedures, particularly on the issue of independent appeals and complaints. (Recs 88 - 99)