Examination of Witnesses

Adoption and Children Bill – in a Public Bill Committee am 11:17 am ar 21 Tachwedd 2001.

Danfonwch hysbysiad imi am ddadleuon fel hyn

Professor John Triseliotis and Professor Sonia Jackson, called in and examined.

Photo of Mr David Hinchliffe Mr David Hinchliffe Llafur, Wakefield

I welcome my colleagues to the second part of our sitting and I welcome two new witnesses. Would you please briefly introduce yourselves?

Professor Sonia Jackson:

I have just retired as Professor of Applied Social Studies at the University of Wales, Swansea. My background is partly in social work and partly in psychology. I was originally a clinical psychologist. I have been researching on the subject of children in the care system for about 25 years. This year I published three books, which may be relevant. One is about stability and instability in the care system and the other two relate to the education—or miseducation—of children in care.

Professor John Triseliotis:

I am Emeritus Professor at the University of Edinburgh, and a Visiting Professor and Senior Research Fellow at Strathclyde university. I have been a director of social work and education at Edinburgh university for many years. I have researched separated children for about 55 years now, and published a couple of dozen books on issues to do with separated children. I am a half-adopted Scot, internationally adopted at the adult age of 30.

Photo of Mr David Hinchliffe Mr David Hinchliffe Llafur, Wakefield

Some of us around this table were reading your books many years ago.

Photo of Robert Walter Robert Walter Ceidwadwyr, North Dorset

My question is really directed to both Professor Jackson and Professor Triseliotis, but I shall start with Professor Triseliotis. On the question of access to birth records, do you think that birth parents should have the right to protect their identity from adopted children and others if they so wish?

Professor Triseliotis:

No, I do not. For me, this is a very sad day because I have deja vu from 26 years ago. I carried out the initial research for the Houghton committee, to produce probably the first video film about access to records and what adopted people feel. The committee, on the basis of our evidence, was persuaded. When the Children Act 1975 came to a similar committee, similar issues were raised at the time by a section of the press. They said that Pandora's box would be opened if access to records were allowed.

Some portrayed adopted people as vindictive, as possible blackmailers, and as abusers of any facility. We had then had that facility in Scotland for 30 years. Now it is 70 years since the facility has been available in Scotland, and 25 years in England and Wales. There has been no incident of adopted people having been proved to be vindictive or blackmailers. I am not saying that not one single adopted person could be like that, but there are many others who are not adopted who are blackmailers and accusers and their rights are not being taken away.

Photo of Mr David Hinchliffe Mr David Hinchliffe Llafur, Wakefield

Why do you think that the position has changed?

Professor Triseliotis:

I cannot understand—it came out of the blue. I thought that we would have to fight, but this was 25 years ago. Other countries, on the basis of our research and experience, changed their laws. My view is that adopted people are seen as a soft option, a soft target group. We have fought for 30 or 40 years now to dispel the view that adopted people are second-class citizens. This is what is now being reintroduced for no apparent reason.

If a birth child were to be deprived of their birth certificate or of possible access to their parents, there would be an outcry, and yet every year there are many birth children who murder their parents. They murder their brothers or their sisters or their grandparents, but there is no call to deprive them of their rights.

Photo of Mr David Hinchliffe Mr David Hinchliffe Llafur, Wakefield

Professor Jackson, do you concur with your colleague's views?

Professor Jackson:

Absolutely, yes. I think that it would be an extremely retrograde step if this clause were to pass into law. I am not aware of any incidents in which adopted children have attacked birth parents, but there are many, many hundreds where they have been very pleased indeed to be able to trace their birth parents, and have usually been welcomed.

I have just come back from Australia, and I was very struck by a book called ``Empty Cradles'', which is the account of the quest of the children who were forced to emigrate from England to Australia. It is about their desperate wish to find out about their origins and trace their birth parents—often, sadly, too late. I think that I agree with the witness in the previous sitting, who said that it would be devastating if people were refused access to their birth certificates. People have now had that access, of course, for 25 years.

Photo of Robert Walter Robert Walter Ceidwadwyr, North Dorset

The Chairman and I are well aware of ``Empty Cradles'', because we conducted an inquiry into the matter for the House of Commons. However, I wish to pursue the point and get an answer from both of you. Is a compromise possible between the Government's position and the view that you have expressed whereby the birth parents could agree that the adoptees would have access to birth records but would undertake not to make contact?

Professor Jackson:

It is a civil right to have access to your birth certificate, as Professor Triseliotis said. I do not see that the birth parents should have the ability to block that right.

Professor Triseliotis:

Let me put it another way. Each year, certainly, we have cases of people who are mentally ill and released from hospital. Occasionally, some of them commit crimes, even murder. Psychiatrists themselves are not always clear who is likely to do this, but because there are occasionally crimes of that sort, there has been not been a call that mentally ill people should not be released from hospitals. Neither have there been calls for parole to stop because, occasionally, people on parole commit crimes. I think society has to accept certain risks. The role of society is to try to protect people, and if parents feel they are harassed by a child they parted with for adoption years ago, there are laws that should be used to protect them. I think in a society that values blood ties and kinship, to try to deprive a section of that society—British society—from having access to that blood tie and that kinship is a deprivation of basic human rights.

Photo of Mr Hilton Dawson Mr Hilton Dawson Llafur, Lancaster and Wyre

I agree with every word that has been said about the right of adopted people to access their birth records. I am slightly surprised by the view that birth parents should have a converse right to contact their children as adults, and I would appreciate an explanation of that. Is the correct balance not reflected in the current position, whereby adopted people can make contact and birth parents can make known their willingness to be contacted?

Professor Triseliotis:

We take account of studies about birth parents who parted with children for adoption. We did one 10 years ago and we are doing one at the moment. We are looking at the perspective of all three parties to adoption: the adopted people, the adoptive parents and the birth parents. We know from these studies that birth parents cannot put this episode behind them—it has been very traumatic and very difficult, and they are haunted by continued guilt. Many of them have mental health problems as a result. They are worried about whether the child is doing well or not. I think it is fair, in the same way that there have been—not always—mental health issues, identity issues and esteem issues in relation to adopted people, that there are also issues about mental health and about concerns and guilt that permeate the lives of many birth mothers.

Photo of Mr Hilton Dawson Mr Hilton Dawson Llafur, Lancaster and Wyre

I accept everything that you say about the pain experienced by birth parents. However, if the proposal were accepted, would there be circumstances in which people who had abused their children and proved seriously detrimental to the children were allowed into such children's lives in future? Should we not try to resist that? If the children want to make contact, that is fine, but should we not protect them from people who have abused them?

Professor Triseliotis:

There may be, occasionally, dramatic cases of that sort. I do a fair amount of work for the courts. Things are much more grey at the levels at which parents may neglect and sometimes abuse—sometimes, there are serious abuse cases. Such children are often older when they come to courts and the parents' rights are taken away from them. Those children have access to a brother or sister. Contact is not difficult for the children. I think that it is setting up a worst possible scenario to deprive a lot of people of possibilities that are essential to them.

Photo of Kevin Brennan Kevin Brennan Llafur, Gorllewin Caerdydd 11:30, 21 Tachwedd 2001

Would not a more acceptable middle way be a much more active service available to birth parents to establish and signal the fact that they wish to contact adopted children in adulthood?

Professor Triseliotis:

Let me put it like this. Even in 1969-70, when we carried out the first research into adopted people searching for the records in Scotland, the vast majority of them were looking for intermediaries—for people to help them. Only one out of 75 turned up at his mother's door to say, ``I'm so and so.'' Adopted people like to have facilities—they turn to people to help them through it. Our experience is that birth mothers also want to have that kind of facility. Now that the services are expanding and developing, that will come naturally without having to make specific laws.

Some legislation works well, and in my 35 years of research in child care if I thought that one piece of legislation would work well, it would be this one. But to be told suddenly that it is to be changed is incredible.

Professor Jackson:

I can only agree, but I do not feel so strongly that birth parents should have a right to access their birth children without going through an intermediary. I would agree with Hilton Dawson's position on that.

Photo of Kevin Brennan Kevin Brennan Llafur, Gorllewin Caerdydd

In the case of birth parents, should they not at least have a right to have their wish to contact their adopted child signalled actively to that child, even though they do not necessarily have the right to identify and locate the child?

Professor Jackson:

Yes.

Photo of Kevin Brennan Kevin Brennan Llafur, Gorllewin Caerdydd

Are either of you aware of any academic or organisation involved in adoption—apart from the Department of Health—that thinks it is a good idea to change the current provisions enabling adopted children to have access to their birth certificates?

Professor Jackson:

As I understand it, all voluntary organisations are in agreement that that would be a retrograde step and are opposed to it.

Professor Triseliotis:

To my knowledge, I know of no one who is really for the proposal. Scotland has reduced to 16 the age at which adopted people can have access because it has caused no problems for 70 years.

Professor Jackson:

There is a much better understanding now of the importance of identity to children who have to live away from their own families.

Photo of Jonathan Djanogly Jonathan Djanogly Ceidwadwyr, Huntingdon

Regarding birth parents contacting adopted children, is it not important to distinguish between pre-1976 cases and post-1976 cases? For example, in pre-1976 cases, it is possible—indeed, it is frequently the case—that a lot of the children do not even know that they were adopted, so to have a birth parent contact them could lead to a significant change in their lives that would be less likely in a post-1976 case.

Professor Triseliotis:

I do not really support the view of keeping secrets because the adoptive parents chose not to tell. It is regrettable if any parents are still doing so, but I would not be surprised. Eventually, it will come out—it is unlikely that it will be kept a secret—but the longer that it is kept a secret, the more the trauma will be at the end.

Photo of Jonathan Djanogly Jonathan Djanogly Ceidwadwyr, Huntingdon

But at the point at which those parents adopted, they had the right to make that choice. That was the basis on which they adopted.

Professor Triseliotis:

Interestingly enough, the study that we are doing now—we rushed to analyse the figures, to provide the Committee with a more objective view—shows that 94 per cent. of birth mothers who have been sought out by their children were pleased or very pleased that they did so. Only an insignificant number have doubts, and 94 per cent. were positive or very positive. In human research, it is rare to get those kinds of percentages.

Professor Jackson:

I support that. It is a pity if we get completely stuck on this point, on which there seems to be a wide measure of agreement.

Photo of Julian Brazier Julian Brazier Opposition Whip (Commons)

Just before we move on to placement orders, I want to be clear on the current point. Do you both propose that it should be possible for birth parents to signal to children who are under 18 that they wish to contact them?

Professor Triseliotis:

We are saying that about children over the age of 17 or 18.

Photo of Julian Brazier Julian Brazier Opposition Whip (Commons)

I just wanted to be clear about that.

We heard testimony yesterday from British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering. It said that only a high threshold should be allowed for cases in which children were placed for adoption against the wishes of their parents. Its suggested wording was:

``adoption would be so significantly better for the child than any other option as to justify overriding the parents' wishes.''

Do you feel that the Bill, which makes the child's interests paramount—I am trying to put it in a neutral way—is correctly drafted; or do you support BAAF's call for a much higher hurdle?

Professor Jackson:

I would be absolutely opposed to it. There is clear evidence, which is acknowledged by the Government and was repeatedly stated in the Lords debate on 24 October, that the care system has not been a good parent to the children for whom it has been providing substitute care; in particular, it has been unable to provide stability for a high proportion of children who cannot live at home. My research on stability and instability shows—I think that Professor Triseliotis' review would agree with this—that adoption is by far the most stable form of substitute placement. Of course, it is not suitable for all children, but if we put the welfare of children above the interests of the parents, as we should under the Children Act 1989, I do not think that raising the threshold would be a good idea—in fact, it would be a very bad idea.

We still have only 5 per cent. of children being adopted from care, which is a very low proportion, although many of those children will never be able to live with their parents again. The Government's initiative has already had good results—the proportion rose by 40 per cent. between 1998 and the present, which is encouraging—but I still feel that there is enormous scope to raise the number of children adopted from care who cannot live with their parents. Obviously, I want to emphasise that the best thing is for children to live in and grow up with their own families, but we know that many children cannot do so, and adoption is by far the best alternative for them.

Photo of Julian Brazier Julian Brazier Opposition Whip (Commons)

In summary, would you say that adopting the BAAF proposal would seriously jeopardise the Government's objective of increasing the number of children being adopted?

Professor Jackson:

That is my opinion.

Professor Triseliotis:

I said before that I do a fair amount of court work and I see lots of cases involving children of different ages who are subject to different decisions and different judges in all parts of the UK. I agree with Professor Jackson that to raise the level higher would deprive many children of the opportunity of adoption. Usually, two alternatives are put to judges—long-term foster care and a residence order. First, one of our research studies has clearly demonstrated that what children value is when their legal rights are in the hands of their parents or adopted parents. I am publishing an article in next year's Child and Family Social Work journal—I could send an advance copy to the Committee—in which I outline the advantages and disadvantages of those two forms of long-term substitute parenting.

I make no bones that adoption is the preferred option—instead of long-term foster care, with its unpredictabilities and uncertainties. The possibilities of a long-term foster care placement lasting to the age of 16 or 17—it should extend beyond that—are about one in twelve. That is a very low percentage. However, the biggest advantage that we have found in adoption is the emotional and legal security that it provides to children. Before we conducted one of our studies, it never occurred to us that the children themselves would place so much value on legally—as they put it—belonging to their parents. ``By law'', they said, ``they are ours. By law, I can call them mum and dad. By law, I belong here.''

That kind of emotional commitment is the basic difference that we found. Most foster carers are excellent, but they come into fostering with a different kind of commitment. Long-term fostering has an opt-out clause. Adoption can have an opt-out clause, but it is a different one—the commitment is different. That is what we are trying to say: there is that emotional difference, which the children themselves value. Children and adults have known from time immemorial what adoption is about and the kinds of feelings that it raises. They do not understand guardianship orders, long-term permanent fostering, and all that: as we found, those do not convey that kind of emotional security.

Photo of Jonathan R Shaw Jonathan R Shaw Llafur, Chatham and Aylesford

With regard to the issue of children living with foster carers, is not a part of the opt-out clause—as you describe it—due to the old legislation, which meant that young people left care at 16 or 17? We have changed that law: young people can stay in care until they 21—and up to the age of 24, if they are in education or training. If that legislation had been introduced, say, 10 years ago, would that have had an effect on the outcome of your study?

Professor Triseliotis:

The study by York university projected the kinds of figures that I mentioned earlier. About one in 12, or one in eight—a very small percentage—last as long as they are needed.

What I am trying to say is that, increasingly, you will have more breakdowns in both adoption and fostering because of the kind of child that now goes to either. Nevertheless, we did an analysis by age group, which is an important factor, and even when you do that, there are still higher levels of breakdown within long-term fostering. And nobody knows what will happen after the five years—the period at which most studies stop. Attrition continues up to the ages of 16 and 17. If they last up to 16, they do not need the legislation to tell them that the child becomes almost part of the family.

At the same time, I am saying that there are situations in which long-term fostering is the appropriate solution. I am dealing with such a case at the moment. Two children, aged five and seven, have been living with their foster parents for three or four years. They cannot return to their families. The foster carers cannot adopt them, for several reasons, but they are prepared to make a commitment to keep them. Now, you cannot free those children for adoption under any kind of order. It is unlikely that an uprooting and transplanting of that sort will work. So of course, what you do there is support the fostering arrangement to make life good for the children, to last them to find a social place in their life.

Photo of Mr Hilton Dawson Mr Hilton Dawson Llafur, Lancaster and Wyre 11:45, 21 Tachwedd 2001

We have heard some powerful evidence today. Could our witnesses give us their ideas about the future of the new concept of special guardianship? With the transfer of parental responsibilities, it will obviously be a new means of securing stability for children in long-term placements.

Professor Jackson: If it is going to work, it will need a great deal of support and explanation, because it seems to be quite close to the concept of custodianship, which you will remember came in under the Children Act 1975 and was never really implemented at all. I think it could suffer the same fate, for the reason that Professor Triseliotis has given—that it is not meaningful to lay people and to children. But I do see that it has a place.

I would like to make another point, which is about the relationship between fostering and adoption. Most older children, if you look at the statistics, are actually adopted by their foster parents; but we know that a lot of local authorities are not at all keen to encourage foster parents to adopt because it means they lose a resource. I do not know if there is some way that the Bill could take account of that and counteract it, because it seems to me that in those cases the local authorities are definitely not acting for the welfare of the children, since they know that adoptions by foster parents of older children are among the most successful—I think they ought to be given every encouragement.

Professor Triseliotis: I agree with a lot what Professor Jackson has said. I hope you do not regard me as cynical, but of course these provisions existed before: we used to call them guardianship in Scotland when you called it custodianship; when you called it custodianship here, we called it guardianship in Scotland—to make sure we were a bit different. It has not been taken up, as many of you know, and residence orders have not been taken up. The main reason is what we found from some of our studies—that there is always the possibility of reversing the arrangement. The new guardianship order has that possibility, too. I hope it works, because in the kind of example I gave before—and there are many like that—it may produce a little more security. If can produce a bit more security, it can go some way, but do not put too many hopes into that.

Photo of Tim Loughton Tim Loughton Shadow Spokesperson (Health)

It would be useful to have some more statistics. How many foster parents later became adoptive parents of the children placed with them? The shortage of willing foster parents is obviously a key resource problem, and what Professor Jackson said about local authorities wanting to keep them is true. What is the proportion of mixed foster and adoptive parents—parents who have adopted children that they had previously fostered but who still act as foster parents for other children? Is that unusual? Should it be encouraged?

Professor Triseliotis:

It is not unusual, but I could not really give you exact figures. We know that some 13 per cent. of foster carers each year adopt their foster children, but how many of those continue? I certainly know in our—I should go back perhaps. We did a survey of 1,000 foster carers in Scotland. I know that a number of them left, but they came into fostering with that explicit purpose: they would foster and if they adopted the child, that is what they were going to do. But quite a number of others did not stop fostering.

There can be issues, and one of the issues that we have come across is when a foster family adopts one child that is fostered but does not adopt another. There can be feelings between the children when this happens. It is not as clear as that, but I would like to see, like the example before, more foster parents being allowed to adopt, simply because it is not good for children to be moved from one family to another; children themselves do not like it, and the older they are the less they like the idea of being moved.

Photo of Tim Loughton Tim Loughton Shadow Spokesperson (Health)

Are you saying that ideally there should be a system whereby there is a probationary fostering period that becomes an adoptive period? Is that an ideal that we should try to achieve? Is there empirical evidence to support the stability of such a rite of passage, compared with cases in which people have adopted someone whom they did not know so well before?

Professor Triseliotis:

I wrote in one of my articles that for some of the more difficult children and when neither side is ready to make a commitment, an arrangement can be made for fostering that could be developed into adoption. Some children are themselves cautious about that, and some carers are cautious. There is no harm in allowing for that possibility, when both sides may become more certain that that is what they want.

Professor Jackson:

I would like to see a position in which, when children are being looked after and there is no realistic possibility of their returning to their families, adoption is considered as a contingency plan right from the beginning, not as a last resort. In the past 20 years or so, there has been a negative culture in social work in relation to adoption, which has been unfortunate. One of the things that I have heard over and over again from young people who have grown up in care is, ``Why wasn't I adopted?''

Photo of Mr David Hinchliffe Mr David Hinchliffe Llafur, Wakefield

Presumably, you would share the view that recently, and in particular since the Children Act 1989, social workers have placed too much emphasis on supporting contact with the natural family and restoring the child to the natural family, rather than on moving away from the natural family and making a clean break?

Professor Jackson:

Restoring to the natural family is one thing, and contact can mean a lot of different things. From the point of view of identity, it is important that children should be allowed to preserve a connection with their birth family, but not necessarily face-to-face contact. The 1989 Act has been misinterpreted by many social workers to mean that they are obliged to keep trying to return children to parents who are not able to look after them and may, indeed, abuse or neglect them.

Professor Triseliotis:

May I qualify that slightly? There are two aspects. One is that of generational continuity, which we have been talking about in relation to access to records. The other one, which is new in the past 10 to 15 years, is that of emotional continuity. Some of the children adopted now are older and have emotional links with a mother, grandparent or an uncle. You cannot excise those links from a four-year-old, five-year-old, six-year-old or seven-year-old. We know that some children need to maintain that link, and it may have to involve face-to-face contact periodically—maybe three or four times a year. That is not the same as share parenting. Contact of that sort does not damage the placement or the relationship. Children are aware of the differences between different types of relationships.

Professor Jackson:

I agree with that.

Photo of Mr Hilton Dawson Mr Hilton Dawson Llafur, Lancaster and Wyre

The vast majority of children who come into care are fostered, and the vast majority of children who come into care return home after a short period. Are there dangers in giving foster carers the idea that fostering can lead to adoption, when in fact what we might want those foster carers to do is work actively with the child, the family and the social worker to ensure a safe and secure return to the natural parents?

Professor Jackson:

We are now distinguishing much more clearly between short-term placements of the kind that you are describing, and situations in which it is clear that the child will not be able to return safely to the birth family.

Professor Triseliotis:

That kind of possibility can arise, but strangely enough it is the foster carers who adopt their foster children who run the most open forms of adoption and are prepared to see what is best for the child. They are much more prepared to accommodate a member of the birth family, for example, if it is important to the child. Thus, it can go either way.

Professor Jackson:

May I reinforce John's point about contact? It is not only the mother or father who may be emotionally important to the child. There is a wide range of other relations and friends.

Professor Triseliotis:

This is for those who want to change section 51 of the Adoption Act 1976. A survey by Lowe and Murch found that 80 per cent. of the children adopted in the middle 1990s had had some form of contact with members of their birth family. Many had indirect contact, through letters and so on, but a high proportion had direct contact with mothers and siblings. Many siblings had each other's addresses; they knew where each one was. To try to police an area such as that, under the current adoption system, would be a nightmare, and it would be unnecessary policing.

Photo of Julian Brazier Julian Brazier Opposition Whip (Commons)

I entirely take the point about grandparents and, critically, sibling contact. However, unless I misunderstood you, the logical progression of face-to-face contact with birth parents would be to end up eventually with the Australian system, which was referred to earlier. They have virtually open adoption. The effect has been a complete collapse of adoption numbers, because adoptive parents, already taking on a difficult role by adopting abused and damaged children, also have to take on the idea of occasional face-to-face contact with the birth parents. The latest figures that I have for Australia indicate that the entire number of children adopted in the past year was less than 500.

Professor Jackson:

With respect, that has much more to do with the ``stolen generation'' and the relationship with the Aboriginal population. That is a large issue that we should perhaps not get into.

I see that we are running out of time. I wanted to make a point about post-adoption services.

Photo of Mr David Hinchliffe Mr David Hinchliffe Llafur, Wakefield

By all means, lead us in to it.

Professor Triseliotis:

May I just say that I warned the Australians in 1989, when I was there, that an anti-adoption attitude was developing in government circles; however, that was different from the situation that we have in Britain. We must not confuse the two. I regret what happened in Australia; I warned them.

Photo of Mr David Hinchliffe Mr David Hinchliffe Llafur, Wakefield

Professor Jackson, you mentioned support services.

Professor Jackson:

I want to make a point about clause 4. As so often happens with anything from a social services perspective, education is sidelined, whereas it is absolutely crucial to the success of adoption and fostering, too. If children are not settled and doing well in school, that has an impact on their home life, particularly if they are excluded from school and no placement is found quickly for them, or if they are relegated to a substandard kind of education—pupil referral units and that kind of thing. That puts a strain on the adoptive relationship, which it sometimes is not able to withstand. That is partly to blame for the relatively high—although still quite low; I think that it is about 8 per cent.—level of placements that do not proceed to adoption.

If we want adoption to succeed, it is essential to include education personnel—teachers—in the post-adoption support service. I do not think that they will be included unless something stronger is added to clause 4.

Photo of Tim Loughton Tim Loughton Shadow Spokesperson (Health)

Education is a good example. Many of the witnesses discussed a multi-agency approach to support services. What other support services would you advocate? We use the great phrase ``support services'' when we place obligations on local authorities to provide support services after doing an assessment. What does that mean in practical terms?

Professor Jackson:

The most glaring gap is in psychiatric services. I have just published a comparative study of the health of looked-after children in care and of children who are living at home. What shouts at one from the study is the desperate need for psychological services for children who would not necessarily be diagnosed as mentally ill using strictly psychiatric criteria, but whose behaviour is very disturbed and where it is far beyond the capacity of parents to deal with that behaviour without help and support. The problem is that those services are not currently available. I know that the Government are trying to do something about that, but the impact on children who are placed for adoption is probably much greater than on children who are living with their own families. The risk to adopted children is much greater.

With regard to education, the big problem is that children who come from care to be adopted bring with them a range of educational problems, especially a reputation that makes them unacceptable to schools. That reputation may be completely undeserved. They may be of normal intelligence and behaviour, but simply the fact that they have been in care stigmatises them and makes schools reluctant to accept them.

A useful example from New South Wales is that a child who has been in care must be given preference for a school place over a child who lives in their own family. That is a legal requirement and it would be useful to introduce that in this country.

Photo of Mr David Hinchliffe Mr David Hinchliffe Llafur, Wakefield

I am interested in the point that you have just made. Some years ago, Robert Walter and I were on a Health Committee inquiry into looked-after children. The most surprising conclusion that we reached related to the failings of the education system, rather than the care system.

Photo of Mr David Hinchliffe Mr David Hinchliffe Llafur, Wakefield

Yes, both. However, I was surprised about the schooling issue. The schools were not interested, because the youngsters often had problems. The emphasis in the league tables is on achievement, and they were not going to be achievers in some areas, so you have made an important point.

Photo of Tim Loughton Tim Loughton Shadow Spokesperson (Health)

That is very interesting, Professor Jackson. My understanding of support services has been based much more on people from local authorities coming round and making sure that a family has enough to live on and that the food and housing are adequate, whereas you highlighted education and also the health service aspect.

Who should be carrying out the assessment orders? We heard that there will now be a duty on local authorities to provide assessments to establish the problem, if called upon to do so. It is our worry that that may take an indeterminate amount of time, and that all the resources go into assessment before we deliver the support services. You say that the assessment issue is more complex. Who should be carrying out that assessment, and what qualifications should they have?

Professor Jackson:

I have a difficulty, because I agree so much with people who have voiced fears that all the effort would go into assessment instead of providing services. The whole history of social work with children has been bedevilled by the obsession with assessing children, rather than providing help to them. Education is a key aspect, and I fear that unless that section is strengthened, it will be sidelined, as it has in the past. The education authority should have a duty to provide services, and it should not just be seen as the responsibility of the social services.

Professor Triseliotis:

I agree absolutely with what Professor Jackson has said, but I draw attention to a piece of research from York university that evaluated several services that are offered to children in care, especially in foster care. There are similar issues in adoption. The service that came out well was the one offered by educational psychologists. I would like to see the research replicated to see whether it helped, because if it is true, we may have made a breakthrough and can establish exactly what educational psychologists offer the children that makes a difference.

Photo of Mr David Hinchliffe Mr David Hinchliffe Llafur, Wakefield

The final main topic that we want to talk about is the right of non-married couples to adopt. I do not know whether you were in the previous session but we had an interesting exchange towards the end. My personal concern is that there is a conflict between the welfare principle and denying unmarried couples the right to adopt. I look at it from the point of view of one of several elderly social workers around the table.

I recall a case in the 1970s when I was involved in the approval of two women as foster parents for a child. The perception of the women now would be different to what it was then. We had to go to the chair of the committee for approval because there was a suggestion that they might have been lesbians. It was controversial at the time, but they were approved because it was deemed to be in the best interest of the child, although that term was not used in law. It would concern me if the Bill precluded such an arrangement being made permanent. What are your views on that?

Professor Triseliotis:

I was lecturing in Spain two weeks ago and when I said that we have single parents who can adopt or be foster carers, they were astonished that we would do a terrible thing like that. However, when they told me that they keep little babies in institutions before they go to adoption, in case they get attached to their carers, it was my chance to be astonished. You can see how we can misinterpret things, even though everybody says that we talk from a research base.

My stance concerns the quality of the relationship, which was mentioned earlier. There are so many children out there with so many different needs that for some of them whether the carers are a single person or couples—whether married or unmarried—is unimportant. Some 33 per cent. of the population have children without being married, and in another 15 years they will be the majority. Should we exclude a group of people from offering to children something they have to offer? That is the crucial thing—what do they have to offer? That is the basis. The fact that people are married is, in my view, neither here nor there.

Professor Jackson:

I strongly agree with the point that was made in the last session that, in effect, if unmarried people are not allowed to adopt jointly, one will adopt and the other will just look to parental responsibility, but that that will not give the child the security of the legal attachment to both parents. If one parent dies or they split up, the child does not have the choice of to which parent they belong—they belong to the one who legally adopted them. Why should that be? If both parents have been equally involved in their upbringing, I think that the welfare of the child should be the only consideration.

Photo of Meg Munn Meg Munn Labour/Co-operative, Sheffield, Heeley

The angle that I want to explore, which you have already mentioned in some detail, is about unmarried foster parents and the importance of them being allowed to adopt, if it is right for the child. You spoke in detail about how that matters to the child and how being able to be adopted as opposed to any other order helps the permanency and stability of the relationship.

Professor Triseliotis:

May I comment on the research based on single people, mainly women, adopting? There were high levels of satisfaction on the part of the children, who were special needs children. Not only that, but—this question came out earlier in relation to the general population—they examined the attitude of the youngsters now, in their late teens and early 20s, to the relationship with their adoptive mothers. The positive relationships were much higher than the group of children in the general population. Something like 70 per cent. were getting on well with their parents, compared with 85 per cent. who got on well their adoptive parents.

Professor Jackson:

There are lots of reasons why people may decide not to get married formally but still have a very stable relationship It is most unfortunate if those people are denied the right to adopt children to whom they could give a good home.

Photo of Jonathan R Shaw Jonathan R Shaw Llafur, Chatham and Aylesford

You said that 13 per cent. of foster carers adopt children whom they are looking after. Is there anything within that research that can compare the success of unmarried foster carers with that of married foster carers?

Professor Triseliotis:

You mean, who subsequently adopted?

Professor Triseliotis:

Not specifically.

Professor Triseliotis:

No. We first have to start separating the outcome of adoption between those who have previously been foster parents and those who were not. Very often they are lumped together and there can be qualitative differences. Then we can look at single foster carers who adopt compared with those who are married. What we know about single foster carers is that they are much more likely to last longer. They are more satisfied and carry a bigger commitment to the task and that is objective.

The witnesses withdrew.