It was a mere blink of an eye since we were treated to the Adoption Myth Buster, wheeled out at a moment when it was said adoption statistics were through the floor. And it was all the fault of Re B-S. Or people misinterpreting B-S. Or people not being sufficiently, unequivocally, evangelical about adoption.
But knock me down with a feather what is this I see reported? [link added: http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed137824] Adoption is not really down after all? In fact it seems to be rising? Wait, what? Adoptions are up 26% on last year and are now at their highest highest since 1992.
Now I grant you, the stats cited at the point of publication of the myth buster did show a recent dip in the period from Sep 13 – Jun 14 (so covering a period slightly more current than the stats above). But whilst the blip is downwards, the trend is an upward incline. Perhaps a trend will emerge, but in light of the recent restatements of what Re B-S doesn’t say (by which I mean the judicial restatements of what it doesn’t say), and in particular in light of Re R (A Child) [2014] EWCA Civ 1625, released today I doubt any trend that does emerge will be down to misinterpretations of B-S.
The astute amongst you will notice the final paragraph in that judgment, wherein the President takes the opportunity to observe that :
“On 11 November 2014 the National Adoption Leadership Board published Impact of Court Judgments on Adoption: What the judgments do and do not say, popularly referred to as the Re B-S myth-buster. This document appears to be directed primarily at social workers and, appropriately, not to the judges. It has been the subject of some discussion in family justice circles. I need to make clear that its content has not been endorsed by the judiciary.”
I wouldn’t like to say I told you so…But I actually did.
A blip in more than one sense then.
How deeply upsetting it must be for the parents in this and in some aspects the child when they reach an age to read such judgments,
Is it right for an appeal with the far reaching consequences be thrust into the ungodly debate of the Adoption Process and an explanation verbatim of Re B-S, surely the matter is such that a View from Pres. Chambers would have been a better and more dignified approach, rather than using this mothers case as a “Patsy”
The poor mother has waited nearly 2 months for her outcome of the dismissed appeal in order for that clarification.
In these heart wrenching decisions most in the field have to make the principles of help and support are vastly outweighed by the means to achieve an end, “Binge Drinking” a term coined by the media, there is no true definition to what amounts to “Binge” drinking,
President Munby highlights a catalogue of problems the mother faced, some self inflicted, agreed, but ultimately a channel the mother could only find to remove herself from the daily rigors of life, however, why did it end up in such circumstances that led to this judgment, who ultimately failed the family in this case?
Don’t the stats show a rise in adoption orders but halved adoption decisions by LAs and placement orders, indicating that adoption orders rate will soon drop? That was my understanding but perhaps there are some new stats?
If they do I had not appreciated that. Will go back and take a look…
Ok. The Stat release is here (I’ve now linked to it in the main post too).
See p6-8 :
“9,260 (13%) children looked after at 31 March 2014 had a placement order in place. This is down from 14% in 2013 and is the first time this percentage has decreased since 2010.”
and “The number of children placed for adoption rose between 2010 and 2013, but has decreased very slightly in 2014. There were 3,580 looked after children placed for adoption at 31 March 2014 representing 5% of all looked after children. The numbers placed for adoption have increased by 42% from 2010.”
Which I think boils down to the “backlog” of LAC being placed more quickly and / or proceedings being dealt with more quickly (the increase in adoptions and placements for adoption as a result of modernisation / Ryder reforms, now flattening off), and a slight dip in the proportion of placement orders (which you can argue may be for a number of reasons – e.g. misinterpretation of B-S or application of more rigorous analysis depending on your viewpoint).
But if you look at chart 2 on page 7 it is hardly a crash. It is still higher than at any time since 2010.
So I think we are both right! Hurray!!
Wait, Julie I think you are probably referring to the ALB stats here:
which say that “The number of Adoption Decision Maker (ADM) decisions fell by 10% from 6,480 to 5,840, between 2012-13 and 2013-14. This is in line with the falls since quarter 2 2013-14 suggested by quarterly data. Quarterly data suggests that the number of new decisions has continued to fall from 1,830 in quarter 2 2013-14 to 960 in quarter 1 2014-15, a decrease of 47% and From 5,920 to 5,020, between 2012-13 and 2013-14. This is in line with the falls since quarter 2 2013-14 suggested by quarterly data. Quarterly data suggests new placement orders have continued to fall from 1,550 in quarter 2 2013-14 to 760 in quarter 1 2014-14, a decrease of 51%.”
I see that point now. That decrease will be about to work its way through the system and is likely to hit the placement orders made stats in the next 6 months or so and the adoption stats a bit later on.
I think I will write a fresh blog post about this in due course, but what I am struggling to see is the evidence that links that drop to “misinterpretation” of B-S. It might well be linked to B-S but it might also be linked to an *appropriate* change in practice. This is all reported as evidence, but in fact its entirely subjective whether things are going wrong or going right.
Thanks Lucy, I’ll look at the figures when I get a minute and let you know if I can find anything useful. Grateful to you for all your efforts!
(I understand your response, Jerry. It feels just plain wrong for policy to be being made in this way.)
[…] and Lucy has done a piece on it here http://www.pinktape.co.uk/legal-news/sorry-whats-that-you-say/ […]