Safe and Secure Homes For Our Most Vulnerable Children: Analysis of the Consultation on the Adoption Bill

Appendix 3 Report of Four Consultation Meetings

image of Scottish Civic Forum logo

Safe and secure homes for our most vulnerable children - a consultation on the Adoption Bill

Report of four consultation meetings facilitated by the Scottish Civic Forum

Introduction

George Street Research and the Scottish Civic Forum were commissioned by the Scottish Executive to carry out work on the consultation Safe and secure homes for our most vulnerable children - a consultation on the Adoption Bill. The Forum's main role was to run four information/consultation meetings in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Fort William and Aberdeen. The meetings would also be used to assist in recruiting volunteers to participate in focus groups.

Mechanics

Central, accessible venues were booked for the meetings: Renfield St Stephen's Church Centre, Bath Street, Glasgow; An Drochaid, Claggan Road, Fort William; Edinburgh City Chambers, Royal Mile, Edinburgh; and the Foyer, Marywell Place, Aberdeen. The timing of the meetings was scheduled to facilitate the attendance of those coming from work, in response to internal evaluations of previous Scottish Civic Forum events. A user-friendly briefing note on the proposals was produced and cleared with the Scottish Executive before issue, and issued with all invitations. Prior to the award of the contract the Forum had circulated information on the paper-based element of the consultation in its July and August e LEG bulletins about Scottish Executive consultations. Copies of the consultation paper were available at all meetings and those registering for a meeting were alerted as to where a copy of the proposals might be obtained in advance.

Recruitment activity

The Forum issued an email invitation and then followed this up with a hard copy invitation, together with the briefing note, to all of its contacts, to the list of contacts provided by the Scottish Executive and to other adoption-specific contacts. The letter covered both an invitation to the information events and an invitation to focus groups. It was made clear that in-depth telephone interviews could be offered as a substitute for focus groups, recognising the sensitive and personal nature of the subject matter. In addition, former local co-ordinators of the Forum (a number of whom facilitated discussions at the meetings) were engaged to carry out recruitment by widely disseminating information in their areas. Dissemination included not only local groups and contacts but, as far as possible, libraries and community centres. The total number of contacts made numbered over 4,200. This advertising of the events was then followed up with targeted telephoning, with 5 days of staff time dedicated solely to this activity.

The numbers at the meetings were lower than had been hoped. We can provide some feedback as to why this might be. First of all, the number of people in the population who are directly affected by adoption is relatively small and therefore it was perhaps unrealistic to expect that there would be the same degree of interest as there might be in relation to an issue that directly affects a larger number of people.

Secondly, as highlighted in the original proposal submitted to the Executive, the lead-in time was very tight. The desirable lead-in time for public meetings is three months, taking into account the time needed to find and book venues, production of publicity information (fliers, etc), disseminating information in time for groups receiving the information to cascade it to their own membership/clients/service users. This is particularly relevant when using small organisations to help to disseminate information since they often do not have paid staff and rely on disseminating information through monthly or quarterly meetings. In those instances, one relies on the goodwill of particular individuals contacted in asking them to make some phone calls themselves to encourage attendance.

In addition, there was some feedback from those contacted through telephone targeting. A number of people said that it was simply too short notice. Some people commented that they felt they could not come and discuss these sensitive issues in an open forum. They were offered a copy of the consultation document and briefing note and encouraged to submit written comments. A few contacts from a lesbian group said that they might have had potential interest in the issue of joint adoption by same-sex couples but that they were not aware of lesbian couples in their area having problems adopting children. As they felt that this issue had not been a particular difficulty for their members, they were reluctant to come into a forum where there could be participants who were against adoption by gay people. Circumstances external to the meeting and its topic can also affect attendance - the weather in Aberdeen was very bad on the evening of the meeting there and this may have put some people off.

Format of meetings

All of the meetings followed the same format apart from Aberdeen. At each meeting a postbox and paper for anonymous submission of comments was supplied and this was highlighted at each meeting. Only one person took advantage of this facility but then a duplicate comment was made during the group feedback session of the same meeting.

The programme for the meetings is shown below.

6.00pm Registration
6.30pm Opening remarks and introduction
6.35pm Background to the consultation and presentation of key themes
6.50pm Discussion groups
8.00pm Short break to allow facilitators to prepare for feedback session
8.10pm Feedback from each group facilitator
8.30pm Final remarks including invitation to volunteer for focus groups and close

At Aberdeen, the smaller number of participants meant that there was one discussion group and therefore it was not necessary to have a feedback session.

Summary report of the four meetings

Question 1: Do you agree that existing freeing and parental responsibilities orders should be replaced by a single flexible order (a 'Permanence Order') that should secure children in a long-term placement? How should this work in practice?

Some participants felt unable to fully address this question as they did not have detailed enough knowledge of the processes currently in use. Nevertheless, there was an overall wish for a system that would work for the best interests of the child. Many thought that a system that avoided delays for the child, was flexible and was applied across Scotland consistently would be helpful - there were concerns that deliberate delays by others were detrimental to the child, so a simpler, quicker system was generally welcomed. The importance of trained professionals making decisions was emphasised by some, rather than lay people making decisions - there were concerns about Children's Panels; this may also tie into the desire by many for any system to be applied across Scotland consistently.

There were concerns that not enough is done to involve the extended birth family, such as grandparents, in potentially caring for/adopting the child and more efforts should be made to support birth parents/families in caring for their children. If Permanence Orders could make it easier for birth family members to adopt then this was welcomed. There was support for flexibility over contact arrangements yet also concern that there needed to be discretion over this and a worry that a child having contact with a birth family may be off-putting for potential adoptive parents - what level of responsibility would the adoptive family have for the child where the birth family was still involved? There was great concern that grandparents lost contact with their grandchildren through the actions of their children who gave up their own children for adoption.

Mention of guardianship arrangements was made - this found more favour with those who had given up children for adoption and less with those who had adopted children.

Question 2: What criteria should an unmarried couple have to meet before they are allowed to adopt?

There were mixed views on this topic, with some participants stating that unmarried couples should not adopt - it was preferable for couples to be married heterosexuals. Generally, where participants thought it acceptable that unmarried couples should adopt, they were accepting of same-sex couples also adopting, although there were concerns that the sexuality of the adoptive parents could add another factor of discrimination to the adopted child's life. A view was expressed at one of the meetings that a child who had suffered from abuse could find it difficult to form a relationship with an adopter of the same sex and that this might be a relevant issue to take into account. It was suggested that older children's views could be sought on being placed with a same-sex couple.

Criteria suggested were: the ability to offer a loving, stimulating, supportive home: that the relationship was stable, responsible, loving, had some degree of demonstrable permanence (commitments of three to five years were suggested) and had joint financial commitments, such as a mortgage in joint names; one or both of the partners should be working; how a couple interact and cope with stress. Screening could include interviews with former partners, colleagues and neighbours as well as friends and family. Some thought that a Civil Partnership could be a bonus factor in any assessment, others thought that the ability to offer a loving home was the most important factor. Couples could be given training in childcare. Whatever criteria were laid down, these should be consistently applied across Scotland, with professionals not bringing in their own personal values

Some participants noted that single people should not be excluded from adopting children. There was divided opinion about whether same-sex couples should be allowed to foster children.

Question 3: What support should be offered during the adoption process and after to adoptees, adoptive families and birth parents?

On the subject of financial support, many participants thought that adoptive parents should not receive additional financial support although foster carers should. Those who had adopted noted that adopted children could have additional support needs that entailed a greater financial burden and thus financial support should be available. It was noted that any financial support should also be available to extended birth family members, where they had adopted the child. There should be national guidelines for any financial support.

Therapeutic and psychological support should be available to all parties involved in adoption. Self-help/support groups should also be available but not as a substitute for professional assistance. Many participants thought that there should be dedicated social workers for each party in any one adoption, though some participants disagreed with this. Birth families should be supported to avoid the need for adoption. Childcare training should be available to adoptive parents. Respite care may need to be available to adoptive parents. Adopted children may require additional support at school with schools being better informed about an adopted child's needs and circumstances. Letterbox contact with the birth family should be encouraged. There were various suggestions as to how long support should be available - throughout the childhood of the adopted child to lifelong support.

Generally, it was thought that there was a need for a national agency and proper resourcing for support services. Intermediate agencies between birth and adoptive families might be appropriate and an intermediate agency for birth parents seeking to trace children they had given up for adoption.

It was noted that it could be unworkable to state that support should be offered by the originating local authority of the adopted child for in many parts of Scotland there were huge distances to travel - support should be given locally.

Question 4: Should medical information about birth parents be made available if it is in the best interests of planning for a child's future? Who should be able to obtain such information and in what circumstances?

Most participants thought that medical information should be made available. Opinions differed as to who should be able to obtain the information: some thought it should be made available to adoptive parents or an adopted child's GP or the local authority or the adopted child at an appropriate age and level of understanding. It was agreed that where medical information about a child could affect the decision to adopt the child then prospective adopters should be given that information. Many participants raised the issue of the need for ongoing information on the health of birth parents, since certain conditions material to the child might develop in the birthparents only as they age. There were some reservations raised about privacy and in what circumstances information should/could be given out.

Other issues

There were concerns about children, especially older children, having to change their names when adopted and thereby losing their identity.

There was a concern that placing a child with a same-sex couple would influence the sexuality of the child.

There was a concern over the make-up of the Adoption Review Group.

Stringent background checks were required on parties involved in adoption and fostering.

The hearings process in Scotland is too complicated.

Adoptive parents should be honest with adopted children that they are adopted.

Contact arrangements should be agreed between adoptive and birth parents where possible.

Support should be available for private and international adoptions and extended family adoptions.

Report on Glasgow meeting

The Glasgow meeting was held at Renfield St Stephen's Church Centre, a community centre in Bath Street, Glasgow on 4 October 2005. A total of [25] people participated which included: adoptees; adoptive parents; grandparents with adopted grandchildren; birth parents; and professionals. There was also an observer from the Scottish Executive.

Summary

While many participants welcomed the idea of reforming the current system, there were mixed views as to the best mechanism to put in place; some of this could be related to uncertainty over the exact workings of the current system. Many thought that any new system should be flexible (but with consistency across Scotland and effective administration) and there was concern that the current system meant that there might be little stability in a child's life: the child could be pushed from "pillar-to-post" and a new system could help to avoid this.

Guardianship, rather than adoption, was raised as a possibility, with those who had given up children for adoption generally welcoming the idea and those who had adopted not welcoming the idea.

There was a concern that more should be done to avoid children having to be adopted and that the option of the child living with other birth family members, eg, grandparents, should be better explored. In an adoption, birth family grandparents can suffer because of their children's decisions.

Question 2: What criteria should an unmarried couple have to meet before they are allowed to adopt?

Where participants agreed that unmarried couples should be allowed to adopt, it was generally agreed that some sort of assessment needed to be made to ascertain that the relationship was stable, loving and had some degree of demonstrable permanence, such as joint financial commitments; another suggestion was that screening could include interviews with previous partners. It was also suggested that adoption criteria should simply be the ability to offer a loving home, as there was no screening for becoming a birth parent.

It was also suggested that single people should not be excluded from adopting children, they too can offer loving environments and there are many single parent families already.

Some felt that children who had been abused might be better placed with an adoptive parent or couple who were not of the same sex as the abuser.

Some participants thought that only married people should be allowed to adopt a child. Some participants thought that same-sex couples should not be allowed to adopt. Some felt that a stable family unit was the married heterosexual couple and this provided children with security. The needs of the children had to be paramount in the adoption process and there were concerns that a child who was adopted by a same-sex couple could suffer bullying at school.

Question 3: What support should be offered during the adoption process and after to adoptees, adoptive families and birth parents?

With regard to financial support, there was a concern that it should not be seen as an incentive for adoption. One person suggested that grandparents could be given a salary to care for their grandchildren, in preference to adoption (by non-birth family members). Any financial support should be given under a fair national arrangement.

There was great concern that other forms of support should be available to all parties involved in adoption: birth families, adoptive families and adoptees. Counselling, therapeutic and psychological services should be available to all parties and there should be specialist social workers for each party, before, during and after the process of adoption, perhaps for up to forty years. Support needs for adoptive families may include issues such as respite care, discipline, housework and emotional issues. Adopted children may require specific school support. Birth parents should have more support to avoid the adoption of their children. There were concerns that support services were under-resourced and while there was a role for self-help groups they should not be a substitute.

There should be a national agency or a national centre of expertise and there may be a need for an intermediate agency between adoptive families and birth families.

It was generally agreed that medical information should be available to adoptees (at an appropriate age) and to adoptive families and that family behavioural information might also be appropriate to pass on. One group noted that information on the birth parents' medical histories should also be passed on as the birth parents age. It might be appropriate for GPs to hold the information and the NHS could cross-reference family information.

Other issues

There was a concern that children being adopted should not have to give up their birth names, especially older children.

Group 1

There was a cross-section of people with different experiences in relation to adoption in this group.

Some people felt that this question required some knowledge and understanding of the existing formal process and that it was difficult to comment since not everyone involved in adoption has that knowledge and understanding.

There was a desire for a more flexible system to meet the needs of older children but it was felt that there also needed to be a degree of consistency across Scotland. There was a view that the system for making and removing care orders gives birth parents "repeated bites at the cherry". Some people felt that Children's Panels don't have experience of adoption.

Question 2: What criteria should an unmarried couple have to meet before they are allowed to adopt?

Although it was remarked that the average maximum period for cohabitation is 5-7 years and that this does not provide children with security, it was also recognised that marriage is not a guarantee of permanence either. One person wondered how many marriages break up because of the stress of adopting older children. Participants asked whether civil partnerships could serve the purpose of demonstrating permanence. It was felt that the relationship must be stable and loving and the most important factor was how couples are assessed.

Reservations were expressed by some participants about adoption by same-sex couples. In particular, it was suggested that their adoptees might be picked on at school. Given the fact that many of those needing adoptive homes are older, perhaps adolescent, it was felt that adolescence was often difficult enough without adding this factor into the equation. However, there was also a view that some children had been so badly abused they could not live with someone of the same sex as their abuser. Individual decisions need to be made on a case-by-case basis. Although this approach might be appropriate for older children it was felt it would not be for babies. A view was expressed that for some older boys, a single man might be the best adopter. The question was raised, however, as to whether all children with problems can really be 'fixed'. It was also wondered, given the above points, how children could be educated on what constitutes a happy family.

Question 3: What support should be offered during the adoption process and after to adoptees, adoptive families and birth parents?

There was some discussion of whether or not financial support should be available. It was generally felt that it was necessary to ensure that money should not be an incentive for adoption. It was also wondered whether money could become an incentive to adopt a partner's child. Another participant wondered if anyone could really gain financially from adoption. It was suggested that financial support to families should be available under a fair national arrangement.

In relation to other support mechanisms, it was felt that adoptive families must be supported. It was felt that training for adoptive parents was important and that this needs to strike a balance between warning about the realities of the commitment being taken on and providing information about the help available. It was felt that a quicker link-in to psychological services is needed. It is hard to go back to social workers if there are problems but there remains a need for flexible support, eg, if sibling groups are being adopted, support needs encompass such matters as respite care, housework, emotional support and advice on strategies for such issues as discipline. It was felt that existing services and resources for support are not sufficient.

There is a need for traumatised children to be supported. Therapeutic services focused on adoptees are important, particularly to help a child who needs a high degree of therapy. The available resources need to be substantially increased. It was felt that schools are also under-resourced to meet the needs of traumatised children, for whom school can be a huge problem in terms of the syllabus, playground interaction and teacher awareness. It was felt that more teacher/social worker/psychologist liaison is needed.

It was pointed out that there is no national centre of expertise in Scotland and it was suggested that councils are reluctant to seek support from outside Scotland.

It was felt that there is a huge hole in terms of support for birth families. It was suggested that grandparents could be or could have been a positive influence in keeping a child within the family and/or in keeping links if adoption goes ahead. It was suggested that adopters' openness in relation to birth families' contact seems to vary from area to area and that in some areas there is no support. It was felt to be important for a child to understand where he/she comes from. However, it was also commented that appropriate contact changes with age and circumstances. Adoption might involve a lot of family contacts and participants were undecided about how this should best be dealt with. It was generally agreed that support is needed but that guidance on all of these issues would be valuable.

It was felt that adopters make a huge input and also need support. An intermediate agency between adopters and birth parents was suggested.

It was generally agreed that medical information needs to be available. It was felt that disclosure in the interests of the child is a priority, even although there may be legal difficulties. It was felt that adoptive parents should have birth family background health information if they are to parent properly. Lack of medical information was also a problem for young women who had been adopted when they wanted to start their own families. It was also pointed out that family history information can also be relevant to behavioural problems, eg, past trauma which may be noted on police records.

There was less clarity about appropriate mechanisms for conveying medical information. It was felt that birth parents should be encouraged to pass on the information and that contact with grandparents could be useful in finding out about family health issues. It was also suggested that this should include feeding in information over time as birth parent health status changes/develops/ages. It might be appropriate for the information to be held in medical notes held by the GP, which the child could access when they become adult. One suggestion was that the NHS could cross-reference family medical information. It was felt that practice is not currently consistent across Scotland and that steps had to be taken to secure greater consistency.

Group 2

All of the group members had personal experience of adoption in Scotland: one woman had had a child adopted against her will (in the 1960s by arrangement with a religious adoption agency), her other daughter was there as a support/observer; a grandfather wanting specific rights; a father whose wife had given up a child in similar circumstances to the other woman in the group; and a woman who adopted two primary-age children.

Initially, the group did not feel that the four questions or the summary of twenty-one consultation questions were relevant to what they wished to discuss, but as the session evolved all said that they felt they had made the points they wanted to. Three members of the group intended to volunteer for focus groups and may also submit comments directly to the Executive, once they have considered the discussion more fully.

It was generally agreed that a Permanence Order would help to avoid children being pushed from "pillar-to-post" and would aid the hearings system. It was wondered whether life-long Guardianship could be considered rather than full legal adoption but the group could not agree on this idea. Those who had given up children for adoption (ie, birth parents) generally liked the idea, whereas the woman who had adopted opposed it and said she may not have adopted if she had felt it was not permanent and that the responsibility did not lie wholly with the adoptive family.

Question 2: What criteria should an unmarried couple have to meet before they are allowed to adopt?

The group had split views on this question. Half of the group believed that couples must be married to be able to adopt and the remainder felt this was not necessary. There was a unanimous view that the relationship should be shown to be stable and responsible. There was a suggestion that a three-year commitment was sufficient to demonstrate this with one/both adults in secure, well-paid employment with shared financial commitments, eg, a mortgage in joint names.

Half of the group believed that adoptive parents must be married heterosexuals as that is "natural" - the others thought there should be a "live and let live" attitude and that "….anyone who is in a stable relationship and is willing to offer love to a child in need, should be able to adopt."

Question 3: What support should be offered during the adoption process and after to adoptees, adoptive families and birth parents?

It was felt that counselling is needed for both the birth parents and adoptive parents before, during and after the adoption process and this should be available from professionals rather than from ad hoc self-help groups. Although there is a role for self-help groups as a support, they should not be used to substitute for a properly monitored system. It was felt that emotional obstacles should not be put in the way of birth parents. It was also thought there should be specialist social workers who would focus on the different parties involved - not representing more than one interested party, ie, not birth parents and adoptive parents, as there is a potential for conflict.

One woman, who had not been allowed to see her baby daughter before she was taken for adoption, felt that birth parents should be allowed to see their baby. She had been searching for her daughter unsuccessfully since the 1960s. She said, "you were never supposed to find a child who is taken away…"

There was a clear view that medical information should be passed on to adoptive parents and to adoptees (as appropriate to age and understanding). It should be released and not hidden.

Group 3

This group comprised over a dozen people and the majority of those present spoke strongly based on direct personal experience of the adoption process stretching back, in some cases, over forty years. People welcome the Scottish Executive review and believe that this gives an important opportunity for everyone to work together to improve a system that has destroyed many people's lives.

One person made a passionate plea for the position of the extended family. In particular, the role for grandparents was stressed and it was pointed out that although it was for the birth parent to decide on adoption, the decision can have a massive impact on grandparents of the child and the grandparents have no choice or rights in the matter. The child not only loses a birth parent but also loses direct links with their natural grandparents and extended family. It was argued that adoption should never be allowed except as a last resort and only after every extended family option had been ruled out.

At the point of adoption, the child can lose all rights to the assets of the parent, thus perhaps further disadvantaging the child.

It was suggested that there are five hundred children in care in Scotland at the moment, all awaiting adoption and matching to new parents. This is too large a figure and every effort should be made to reduce the figure and reduce the time that children wait. One way to reduce the figure is to make adoption harder and less desirable an option. One person argued strongly that adoption represented failure, not success, of a process. The person stated that it was a "fabrication and a lie" and pursued for social acceptability reasons rather than the good of the child. Adoption robs children of their identity. For older children, this causes severe trauma as they try to accept a new identity and family situation; they know that it is not their own natural identity. The situation might be different for babies but there are fewer babies being adopted now. It was noted that for babies it was easier in their younger years as they had no knowledge of the transaction; things become more difficult in later life as the child tries to understand the mystery of what has happened to him/her.

People agreed with a single flexible order but want it properly and effectively administered.

Question 2: What criteria should an unmarried couple have to meet before they are allowed to adopt?

One Catholic gentleman who had adopted children asked that any new legislation should genuinely be focused on the needs of the child and not focused on a cheap option for government. If it costs more to avoid adoption yet it is better for the child, then the more expensive option should be pursued.

He argued that children should only be adopted into "stable family units". He defined this as a traditionally married couple and was critical of single parents and same-sex couples as they could not offer the "stability" required for good parenthood. They may pass tests at the point of adoption but what happens to the child as it approaches puberty and may reject the sexuality of their adopted parents? He stated that same-sex couples could put children 'at risk'. The government were trying to be politically correct and in order to do this would now put children at risk. He also argued that the extended family should be invited to care for a child long before a child was offered out to a same-sex couple.

One single parent who is currently adopting a child vigorously argued against this and advised us of the strict screening process that she has gone through over the last thirteen months. She was confident that she could provide a good home to a child. Many children are already brought up by single parents. Why should it be different for adopted children?

Where couples are being considered for adoption the screening process should involve an interview with previous partners, for instance, if one of the potential parents had been divorced. Previous partners may have vital evidence that could prevent a tragedy.

One lady argued strongly that same-sex couples should not be excluded from the process. What matters is that they can provide a loving and caring environment for the child. If they can pass the screening process then they should be allowed to adopt. Perhaps the criteria for adoption are too high. After all, what criteria are there for natural parenthood? Virtually anyone can become a natural birth parent without any screening whatsoever.

Question 3: What support should be offered during the adoption process and after to adoptees, adoptive families and birth parents?

One person noted that grandparents should be given a salary to look after the children of their sons or daughters and that this is preferable to adoption.

Most people agreed that there is a need for greater support at all levels. This support may have to be available for up to forty years to see parents and children through the whole process. Perhaps much more support is needed for birth parents to stay with their children and avoid adoption. Birth mothers need particular intensive support and this should include financial support where required.

A plea was made for one national agency to deal with adoption and for it not to be left to 32 different local authorities, which might lead to a postcode lottery for quality of service.

One young man who had been adopted and was currently trying to track down his history asked that this be made easier. It is a human right that he should be able to track down his basic information. He should have access to all medical information available on his birth parents. He was having extreme difficulty on these issues and felt that he could not fully learn about his own identity. He suspected that he might be living in a "medical time bomb" within his own body because of inherited genetic conditions yet he could not access this information to help protect and treat himself.

Other issues

It was argued that even if a child is adopted that it should not give up its birth name. To do so, is for the child to lose its identity. Names are important and part of a child's identity. This is particularly important for older children as they would be faced with a change of name while still in a classroom or school. This causes major confusion to all children in the classroom and can lead to bullying and name-calling.

Anonymous postbox facility

One participant used the anonymous postbox comment facility to highlight a view that it is undesirable to place children for adoption with same-sex couples on the basis that research carried out in America shows that in the early teens the percentage of young men thinking they are gay is higher than in their mid teens and reduces again by the time they reach their early twenties, the suggestion being that placement with a gay couple might influence their view of their sexuality at a formative time in their development. The same statistic was subsequently quoted by a participant during the feedback session.

Report on Fort William Meeting

The meeting was held at An Drochaid, a community centre used by a wide range of groups in Fort William on 6 October 2005. A total of nine people participated including two people who had also attended the meeting in Glasgow. Participants included: a grandmother with an adopted grandchild; professional social workers; a man going through the process to adopt; and birth parents.

Summary

It was agreed that any system that contributed to the well-being and stability of the child was a positive. A new order that was quicker to obtain than the present ones could be helpful for the child. People professionally involved in adoption at the meeting found the current system workable but thought that it may not be clear to non-professionals and thus streamlining might be helpful.

There were concerns that, under a new system, adopting families could be forced to allow the adoptee to have contact with the birth family even where it is not in the best interests of the adoptee and that adopting families would have lower levels of responsibility for their adopted children, which might put people off adopting.

Any new legislation needed to be flexible enough to allow children to be considered as individuals and not just as siblings, with regard to relations with the birth family, and also be tight enough so that decisions were made on the basis of fact.

Question 2: What criteria should an unmarried couple have to meet before they are allowed to adopt?

It was agreed that there should be clear, consistent criteria and a consistent approach as to how couples are assessed for suitability. The child's needs should be the focus and the important issue is that adopting people can offer a safe, happy home, whatever the marital status, even though and perhaps a married couple might be the 'ideal'. A couple's relationship should be enduring and stable, although participants did not mention specific time lengths. It is necessary that any couple can cope with potential problems and it could be appropriate to give childcare training; adopters should also have good information about a child they are adopting.

There was a concern that in traditional areas of Scotland children adopted by same-sex couples could face discrimination.

Question 3: What support should be offered during the adoption process and after to adoptees, adoptive families and birth parents?

It was agreed that extensive support should be available and that this should be properly resourced. This support should be of a range of professionals, including psychologists specialising in adoption; support groups, of those who had experienced adoption, should also be available. It was thought unworkable that the originating local authority of the child should be the one to offer support, where the adopting family lived in a different area, for distances were too great in the Highlands and Islands and other rural areas.

Greater support for birth parents than has been previously available was required. There were mixed opinions as to whether social workers should work with just one party in an adoption process or with all parties. There were also different opinions as to whether support services should be delivered by a centralised agency or locally.

Financial support for foster carers and members of extended families who step in was suggested. There was divided opinion about whether adopters should receive financial help. It was also argued that if non-birth family members adopt and receive financial help then birth family members who were willing to adopt should also.

It was thought that medical information should be made available to prospective adopters as part of the matching process and that some sort of system should be in place to collect information on later health issues of the birth parents.

Other issues

There were concerns that: judgements made by Children's Panels are inconsistent; the Children's Hearings system in Scotland was unduly complicated compared to that in England; the Adoption Review Group may not have the right mix of members; birth parents do not have the right to search for their child/children, unlike in Australia; background checks are not thorough enough and abusers slip through the net.

Group 1

Participants in this group included: a grandmother with an adopted grandchild, professional social workers; and a man going through the adoption process.

It was generally agreed that it would be quicker to obtain a Permanence Order than the present system and that this would be a positive element as birth parents often try to procrastinate in order to extend the adoption process. This was felt to have a detrimental affect on children. Although professionals felt that the current system is workable, as there are clear guidelines and systems in place, it was acknowledged that it can be hard for lay people to understand the framework: from this point of view streamlining the system would be preferable. All orders should be written in clear, non-jargon language.

There was, however, some concern that there might be a perception that adoptive parents would have less responsibility and that this could be off-putting to potential adoptive parents. There was also concern that a Permanence Order might force the adoptive family to allow the child to have contact with the birth family even where it is not in the best interests of the child. The question was asked as to whether the present legal discretion would be removed. As birth parents do not always relate equally or in the same manner to all their individual children, new legislation should be able to take individuals into account rather than the sibling group as a whole.

It was felt very strongly by participants in the group that the legislation should be so tight as to ensure that Sheriffs could only make judgements purely on the basis of fact.

Question 2: What criteria should an unmarried couple have to meet before they are allowed to adopt?

The group began the discussion by saying that in society today every couple should be acceptable if they are a "secure couple". The length of time they had been together is important and also the degree of accord between the couple. There needs to be clear criteria for assessing what constitutes "a couple" to ensure that professional workers assess along strict guidelines without bringing their own personal/emotional values to bear. A safe, secure and happy home is important. The strength of the couple's relationship is vital. Group members all agreed that, ideally, adoptive parents should be married, but unmarried couples in a loving relationship are also acceptable. The latter should, however, be questioned as to why they are not making the formal commitment of marriage.

There was a view, however, that being adopted by a same-sex couple could be a double stigma for the adoptee that would mean that peers doubly discriminate against them. Children spot differences relating to other children and this might not be fair to adopted children. One person was concerned that the issue of discrimination might be a particular issue in the rural, traditional West Highlands where the issue of morality could come into play.

It was agreed that whether the couple is unmarried or same-sex, professionals must be assured that the couple can cope with any potential problems for the child which might arise in the future from the couple's personal, intimate circumstances.

Question 3: What support should be offered during the adoption process and after to adoptees, adoptive families and birth parents?

It was felt that adoptive parents should get support from the local authority region in which they live and that cost should not be a factor. It was felt that the area from which the child came should not be expected to offer support for adoptive parents. This was particularly relevant in the Highlands and Islands and other rural areas, where distance is a significant factor. It was felt that it would be unworkable to offer support for three years to adoptive parents when the relevant authority is geographically distant. Adoptive parents need local professionals as well as the more informal support of local groups.

It was felt that greater support needed to be offered to birth parents once their child has been taken for adoption. They often have a great deal of need, feeling that they have "failed to parent" and so they need support themselves through the Adult Services. The current process could disillusion birth parents so much that they feel totally powerless in the process. It was suggested that historically the single birth parent might have wanted a child to be taken quickly to hide the stigma of illegitimacy - "to put it behind them". However, it was felt that whether birth parents chose to place a child for adoption or it occurred as a legal requirement, support should be in place when needed.

The group felt this was the most difficult question to answer. It was felt that what is done with the medical information is very important. If it was available it should be passed on to the adoptive parents and not withheld by the authorities if it was deemed that sharing of any medical knowledge might lessen the child's chance of being adopted. Medical information would become part of the matching process and would therefore have an effect on potential adoption. The group wondered how vigorously medical information would be sought and was concerned as to what would happen if the birth mother did not know or was not willing to say who the birth father is.

Other points raised:

It was felt that the hearing system is an unnecessary hurdle for parents and that the process is unduly complicated in Scotland compared with other parts of the UK.

There was felt to be no consistency or continuity over the judgements made by Children's Panel members and there should therefore be new, clear training criteria for members concerning all schemes. This would be particularly important if Permanence Orders were introduced. Panel members should have more training, be more professional and less subjective in their judgements and decisions. "…The Panel should not be swung by tears, tantrums, and promises…"

Group 2

The group included birth parents, a member of an adoptive family who is also a professional and an adoptee.

The group felt that a question of this specific, technical nature is hard to answer in a meeting like this. However, it was felt that processes that would give young people stability are good.

Question 2: What criteria should an unmarried couple have to meet before they are allowed to adopt?

Overall, the selection of adopters should focus on the child's needs rather than the characteristics of the adopters (whether this is marital status or anything else). It was agreed that there needs to be an enduring, stable relationship, demonstrable from proper evidence and information gathering. It was not suggested what might represent "proper" evidence. Couples should have had basic childcare training, including understanding of the trauma some adoptees have gone through before and during adoption. Adoptive parents should be provided with good information about the child they are adopting. It was agreed that there needs to be a more consistent approach across Scotland.

Question 3: What support should be offered during the adoption process and after to adoptees, adoptive families and birth parents?

The group had several points of clear agreement and some points of disagreement. It was agreed that traumatised children need massive support and that support services therefore need to be of high quality and involve a range of professionals including psychologists specialising in adoption. It was also agreed that support from people who have been through the same experience is invaluable. Support should extend throughout childhood and beyond. Birth mothers have received less support and attention than other parties involved in adoption and this needs to be rectified with support from specialists with relevant expertise. It was felt that good support needs proper resources and that support services are not sufficiently resourced at present.

There was disagreement about whether or not a social worker should work with all the parties involved in an adoption or specialise in dealing with one of the parties involved (ie, adopters, adoptees or birth parents). Both options found supporters within the group, as did the question of whether support services should be delivered at local government level or by a centralised agency.

It was suggested there should be salaries for foster parents or extended families where they are willing to step in.

There was a difference of opinion about whether or not there should be financial help for adopters.

It was argued that if there is an allowance for non-blood relatives to adopt there should also be an allowance for extended family members who were willing to adopt. A case was cited where a grandmother was willing to take on a group of five siblings but could not do so for financial reasons: as a result the sibling group was split up and the children placed/adopted separately.

In the plenary session it was noted that Kinship Carers' Support exists and it should be used more. There was a lack of consistency in its use.

Participants thought medical information should be available but some thought it was available already through existing information collection processes. However, it was pointed out that there is nothing that can be done at present if the birth parents won't cooperate. It was felt that a system is needed to collect information about later life health problems/developments of the birth parents.

Other issues raised:

It was questioned as to whether the Adoption Review Group had the right people on it, ie, people with personal experience of adoption as well as professionals.

It was pointed out that whereas adoptees in Scotland can look for their birth parents from age 18, birth parents do not have a right to search for their child/children. This right exists in Australia and there was a suggestion this system should be adopted in Scotland.

There was concern that background checks, disclosure etc, are not thorough or consistent throughout the UK and that this allows abusers to move from area to area and slip through the net.

Report on Edinburgh Meeting

The meeting was held in Edinburgh City Chambers on 10 October 2005. A total of [20] participated including an observer from the Scottish Executive. There was a good cross-section of participants: adoptees, adopters, birth parents, professionals and relatives of adopters.

Summary

Participants did not have enough knowledge of the current system to fully consider this question but if the system could be simplified and if it could be easier for birth relatives to adopt and if the term 'adoption' could be moved away from, these could be positives.

Question 2: What criteria should an unmarried couple have to meet before they are allowed to adopt?

Many thought that whether a couple is married or unmarried, there should not necessarily be a difference in the assessment criteria for suitability as adoptive parents. The stability of a relationship (perhaps with a minimum previous commitment of five years), joint financial responsibilities and commitments, the ability to offer a stimulating environment, references, might all be included in an assessment process.

Participants were split on the issue of adoption by same-sex couples. Some felt that a child who was adopted by a same-sex couple might be stigmatised. Some thought that same-sex couples should be allowed to foster while others did not. Some felt that the ability to provide a supportive environment is the important thing and not sexual preference, while others felt that sexual preference was an issue.

Question 3: What support should be offered during the adoption process and after to adoptees, adoptive families and birth parents?

There were mixed views as to whether psychological support should be available lifelong or for a set amount of time. All parties (adoptees, adoptive families and birth families) needed support and both professional and support-group help should be available. Other support measures mentioned were psychotherapy, occupational therapy and counselling. It was noted that resources for support should be ring-fenced and that money should be allocated at the time of placement for ongoing support. Consistency across Scotland is needed and a national agency may be appropriate, with video links.

Letterbox contact should be encouraged and at age 16 adopted people should be given access to appropriate details, such as to enable them to trace their past history. It was suggested that information for birth parents should be relayed through an intermediary.

There were mixed views over financial support. Some felt that it was appropriate for fostering but not for adoption.

It was thought that medical information should be made available but there were different suggestions made as to whether this should go to the adoptive parents and to the adoptee at, e.g. age 18, or to the adoptee's GP, or if it should be held confidentially as part of the adoption records and accessed by the adoptee's doctor. There was a suggestion that cross-referencing could occur within the NHS in order to provide updated medical information on the birth family. There were, however, concerns about privacy, and also that perhaps information should only be accessed in life or death situations.

Other issues

There were concerns that changing an adopted child's name can mean that the child loses an identity - the Norwegian practice of making the birth names two middle names was noted.

Adoptive parents should be honest with a child that he/she is adopted. Contact arrangements should be agreed between birth parents and adoptive parents and a question was raised about what information adoptive parents should pass onto adopted children and what should be decided by the local authority as to which facts should be passed on.

It was suggested that a child might go immediately to an adoption family rather than into foster care.

Group 1

It was felt that many participants don't have enough information or knowledge of the current process to answer the question fully and this made it hard to tackle. However, it was felt that change is needed because most people don't understand the current orders. Changes in terminology would help society to move on in its view of adoption. The title 'Permanence Order' was thought to be good terminology. It was felt that, in the longer term, the word 'adoption', which implied scrubbing out the past and making the child the adopters' own, should be moved away from.

Question 2: What criteria should an unmarried couple have to meet before they are allowed to adopt?

The same high standards should apply whoever is adopting - for example, covering suitability, stimulating environment, references from the community, etc.

Although marriages are not always permanent they are still important. However, anyone should be able to apply to be considered. It was felt that sexual orientation should not be a reason to exclude anyone from consideration and that it was bad that same-sex couples currently have to cover up their relationship in order to adopt. The important thing is the ability to provide a supportive environment. Assessment should focus on how couples interact and cope with stress, and how committed they are to each other. Methods to ascertain this include references, proper evidence to support information about their background and good questioning techniques. Close checking is justified even if it feels intrusive. Social worker expertise is important.

It was also felt important that adopters must love children. They are not trophies even though some (American) celebrities seem to act as though they are.

In cases of same-sex couples adopting or single parent adoption, it is important to ensure interaction with the other sex. Post-adoption support to achieve this was suggested and in this context it was noted that there are not enough men in childcare.

Question 3: What support should be offered during the adoption process and after to adoptees, adoptive families and birth parents?

A number of general points were made and then there were comments specific to adoptees, to adoptive families and to birth parents.

General

It was felt that there should be lifelong support for all parties. It should be optional but available because needs change over time. Information on all aspects of support should be published. The point was made that however much you love, you still need help. Many people had suffered grief and trauma in the past but this had often been ignored. Some people have had bad experiences with social workers and so were reluctant to see them. Professionals need to improve at dealing with all parties in the adoption process. Independent help should also be available. Mentoring support by people with previous experience should be mandatory rather than best practice. It was felt that user-led support groups are useful because they can provide an environment where it is relatively easier for people to feel able to open up.

Birth and adoptive parents should be on the "same side" - the child's - and sharing of their experience is the ideal situation. It was felt that the more open adoption is in terms of information, the better. The group wondered if the three parties in adoption - adoptees, adopters and birth parents - could come together to learn from experience.

It was suggested that a 'centre of excellence' is needed, with video links across Scotland. Consistency across Scotland is needed. All parties need help with adoptee/birth parent reunions in order to understand their own feelings. Prospective adoptive parents need to be prepared for this.

Good models include:

Family Futures Consortium in London
Know My Own, Ireland

Adoptees

Traumatised children's behaviour can be puzzling but it shouldn't be left until the problems get bigger before support is given. Early input will avoid problems later. Older children have specific issues (neglect, abuse, inconsistent care, etc). There is a lack of good psychological support to address these issues. Proposals should be developed working with people who have adoption experience and also birth parents. It was suggested that as local authorities are hard pressed the need for support for adopted children (in terms of, for example, social worker time and therapeutic support, occupational therapy, psychotherapy, etc) should be independently assessed and the support ring-fenced. A full package of support is needed. At the point of placement, money should be allocated for a child's ongoing needs for support.

It was felt that schools are not sensitive enough and need to understand the experience of the adopted child and recognise it within the curriculum. This should include recognition of the need of adoptees, like all children, to be normal.

Adoptees can be haunted by family history issues. There is a specific need to support in cases where adoptees don't know about, or have contact with, their birth parent(s). An adoptee may look for information when he/she grows up, but there may be no information there. This refers to information in general, not just medical information, which is discussed below. The birth mother may have withheld information for a variety of reasons. A way through this is needed; compulsion to disclose information is controversial and it is necessary to understand the motives for withholding. The bottom line is that it's about what's best for the child. Birth parents need encouragement, such as ongoing requests/reminders for information. This is important from the adoptee's point of view because being denied something gives it power. Adoptees want information but simultaneously don't want to hurt their adoptive parents. This can be a painful dilemma, which is unfair on the adoptee who probably didn't ask to be adopted.

Adoptive Families

Adoptive parents can feel abandoned and need support.

Birth Parents

It was felt that there is currently no support for birth parents who need, for example, grief counselling. Birth fathers are often forgotten. For birth parents, being sought by their child is a shock. We should try to prevent adoption by supporting birth parents and helping them turn their lives around. In Australia there is no adoption, only "guardianship".

It was agreed that medical information should be available otherwise lack of information can make adoptees anxious for themselves and any children they may have about every lump and bump. They need information about their risk of potentially life-threatening conditions. Our understanding of genetics is developing.

It was suggested that the information should go to adoptive parents and, at age 18, to the adoptee. It was suggested alternatively that GPs could hold the information. The gathering of information needs to be ongoing so that adoptees can learn what happens to birth parents' health as they (the birth parents) grow older. Channels of communication need to be kept open. The question of obtaining information needs to be kept separate from the issue of personal contact. Another way of obtaining the information would have to be developed.

Although the general point about obtaining medical information was agreed, there were some reservations amongst the group about privacy - it was suggested that maybe it is not possible to have all of the information we want.

Other points

The possibility of a child going forward immediately to the adopter, without going into foster care in the interim, should be explored.

It was highlighted that the issue of name changing is a delicate issue. Name is an identity and to learn you once had another one is to bring your identity into question. Change of name can also make it more difficult to trace birth family. In Norway birth names are made into the middle two names.

Group 2

The group included one person who had been a member of the Scottish Executive appointed Review Group that had produced the proposals under consideration.

This question was left until the end of the discussion group since the group had little knowledge of the technical detail. However, the group thought that a single order should be introduced if it would simplify the adoption procedures. It would possibly make it easier for birth relatives to adopt children and this would be good.

Question 2: What criteria should an unmarried couple have to meet before they are allowed to adopt?

The group suggested that there should not necessarily be a difference in criteria for married/unmarried couples - the rigour of any assessment process was stressed as being essential. There was a minority view that unmarried couples may be less likely to sustain their relationship than married couples. It was suggested that, although this may not be the case, in the assessment procedure being married/in a Civil Partnership should be a "bonus" factor in the assessment.

The group was split over the remaining points raised. Some people felt that stigma/discrimination for adoptees related to the fact of being adopted rather than the sexual preference of the adopted parents. However, it was suggested by others that discrimination is often multi-layered/faceted - and the issue of sexual preference could add another layer of stigma to the adoptee.

It was pointed out that the position at present allows for a single person to adopt who may well be in a same-sex relationship - if the law was to be altered this would assist in the event of a death of a single adoptive parent in this situation - parental rights would be the same as married couples who adopt. If the law is not changed those waiting for adoption will have a longer wait as there will be fewer prospective parents. Stability of the adoptive relationship could be enhanced if couples were allowed to adopt rather than just single people. This issue resulted in the broadest split in opinion in the group of any of the questions.

Question 3: What support should be offered during the adoption process and after to adoptees, adoptive families and birth parents?

Support of whatever kind should be available for at least five years after adoption (and possibly longer in certain cases). There was a minority opinion that support should be available at any stage.

Some information should be required as mandatory in the adoption process to make the task easier for adoptees should they wish to know more regarding their birth parents. It was suggested that it could be a letter at age 16 giving them access to certain details.

There should be minimum professional standards for all those dealing with any adoption issue. It should not just be left to whichever social worker happens to be in the post at the time. An independent national adoption agency (with local access points) should be created and staffed by trained staff (with continuous upgrading of staff skills).

Services regarding all facets of adoption should be better publicised and made known, especially to adoptees. Information for birth parents should be limited and any information relayed through an intermediary - but there is a need for caution as this could cause problems for adoptive parents in relationship building with the adoptee. This service could possibly be administered via a national agency but it may be that there is a need for a separate body with a good working relationship with any national adoption agency.

It was agreed that medical information should be available and should be held, confidentially, as part of the adoption records and could be accessed by the adoptee's doctor. It should only happen in life or death situations. It was suggested that there could be cross-referencing of NHS records relating to the birth family and adoptee and this could be used as a means of obtaining up to date information should these circumstances arise.

Group 3

The members of the group between them had experience of being a birth mother and giving up a child for adoption; adoptees; and adoptive parents. Some attended as interested individuals and others represented a support group. There was also a professional working in the field of adoption.

There were no comments on this question.

Question 2: What criteria should an unmarried couple have to meet before they are allowed to adopt?

Any couple should be in a long-term relationship, possibly a commitment of about five years, and plan to be together for the length of the childhood of any child adopted. A couple should have joint financial responsibilities and commitments to demonstrate a degree of permanence about their relationship. The group was divided on the question as to whether the adopting couple should be a heterosexual couple or if they could be a same-sex couple. People who felt they should be heterosexual also believed there should be a demonstration of commitment through marriage. Others, who felt it was acceptable for same-sex couples to adopt, also wanted to see a well-established enduring family commitment.

In relation to same-sex couples the following points were made:

It was pointed out that a same-sex couple has all the capabilities of a heterosexual couple.

Some people felt that same-sex couples should not be allowed to foster, especially in short term cases as it is too confusing for the child. Others thought that if a same-sex family can adopt why should they not be able to foster?

Another view was expressed that it is in the best interests of the child to have parents who are a mother and father (ie, a heterosexual couple).

An adopted child wants to merge into its community. It already has the label of being adopted without the added problems associated with same-sex parents "….a child does not want to stick out like a sore thumb…"

Question 3: What support should be offered during the adoption process and after to adoptees, adoptive families and birth parents?

There needs to be preparation and support for adoptive parents at all stages of the child's life, not just during the first period of matching. Ongoing, professional, cautious support for the child and adoptive parents should be provided until the child is aged 16. A lifelong mentor like a "godparent" should be provided for an adoptee. The mentor should be from a voluntary organisation, centrally funded so that its future is assured. Counselling should be offered to all parties during and after the process of adoption. It should be readily available and accessible to anyone, whatever the circumstances of the adoption.

Letterbox contacts should be encouraged and maintained. If a child has not been told about the letterbox link to his/her birth family, then at age 16 the local authority must offer him/her the chance to see what has been received and held in his/her name over the years.

At age 16 an adoptee should be informed of their status and given their original NHS number so that they can trace their history.

In relation to financial support, one person felt it was correct to continue paying an allowance if a child was first fostered and then later adopted. The rest of the group believed this to be incorrect and that "….fostering was a job and adoption a vocation - for giving and not taking…" Adoption should be voluntary and not a commitment for which you get paid.

It was felt that the welfare of the child is paramount and critical and important medical information should not be withheld from health professionals. There needs to be clear guidance to authorities about whether known medical information about birth parent/s can be disclosed to the adoptee or adoptive family.

Ideally, everyone in the adoption process should have the best interests of the child to the fore, so a birth parent will pass on all medical information and be understanding about who else should know this, but it was felt that in the real world the information could easily be withheld in order to be deliberately obstructive or to use it as a bargaining tool.

Other points

It was felt that as part of the adoption process a couple should tell the child he/she is adopted. "….it is a child's right to know who they are…" Honesty was important as a child may already feel let down by adults. Some felt the adoptive parents should give all the details. Others felt that only as a child grows up and asks questions should specific details be disclosed.

In the preparatory stages of adoption, the birth parents and adoptive parents should agree contact arrangements for the future. As most children who are adopted are not babies, the adoptive child will remember its birth parent(s) and this contact should be encouraged and not allowed to fall away over time.

The question was asked, however, about how would it feel to have two sets of parents? Is an adopted child really given all the support and counselling required?

The question was raised as to whether an adopted child should be told if the birth parent dies? Does an adoptive parent have the right to withhold this important information? Should it be at their discretion or should the local authorities make that type of decision?

Report of Aberdeen Meeting

The meeting was held on 11 October in the Foyer, Marywell Place, Aberdeen, a centre that provides support and training for vulnerable young people. There were nine people present including an observer from the Scottish Executive.

Summary

There was support for a process that would be quicker and more child-centred and consensus that it is probably better for adoption professionals to make decisions rather than sheriffs or lay people.

Question 2: What criteria should an unmarried couple have to meet before they are allowed to adopt?

The participants felt that marriage was not a guarantee and instead the important thing was that a child can be offered a loving environment.

If marriage was not a possibility for a couple then other evidence of commitment should be sought such as a secure home, shared finance, longevity of relationship and community involvement, with perhaps references from neighbours or colleagues. There were divided opinions on whether prospective adopters should be able to financially support a child - some felt that income should not be a barrier.

An older child could perhaps be asked for input on whether he/she might be placed with a same-sex couple.

Question 3: What support should be offered during the adoption process and after to adoptees, adoptive families and birth parents?

There were divided opinions on whether adoptive parents should receive an allowance - one adoptive parent explained that an adoptee may have special requirements that mean that financial assistance is needed. It was suggested that financial support could be means-tested. Others thought that receiving money for an adopted child could be divisive with regard to the adoptive family's birth children. There was support for allowances for foster carers.

All parties in adoption should have access to support, such as local support groups. Adoptive families should receive training and counselling. Support for birth parents may enable them to keep communication links open.

The child's best interests should be at the centre of decisions and it was important to share medical information with prospective adopters so that they may make an informed decision about their ability to cope. Also, adoptees should know their medical history and a family doctor could hold this information and provide it without revealing the identity of the birth parent; it is also important to provide information as birth parents age, since some issues may arise in later life.

Other issues

Support should be offered in private and international adoptions. There was a question raised about how formal extended family adoption can be.

Simon Cuthbert-Kerr from the Scottish Executive, who was there as an observer, expanded on the question and explained terminology more fully.

There was consensus that the court may not be the best place for decisions to be reached about adoption and care orders. Professionals should be involved at all stages of the decision-making process (eg, over child protection issues). Professionals are paid and trained to look after children and they should be the people making informed decisions about placements - not lay people or sheriffs who may not have the necessary training and insights required to make calculated decisions over the best interests of the child/children. A Permanence Order would appear to be flexible and more able to meet the needs of the child - the group thought it seemed a necessary move to make the adoption process quicker and more child-centred.

Question 2: What criteria should an unmarried couple have to meet before they are allowed to adopt?

It was felt that the word 'unmarried' should be taken out of this question, as there is no guarantee that just because a couple have a marriage certificate they will be more likely to be committed to a long-term relationship. The important thing was for a couple to be able to offer a secure, safe, loving home environment. Their personal commitment to each other should be self-evident.

If a child is old enough they should be consulted concerning their prospective adoptive parents and their opinion should definitely be sought if the prospective parents are a same-sex couple, as it is the child who will be most affected by this decision. However, a child is probably not able to make a fully objective decision, so there needs to be an infrastructure to support the child and help them make the best assessment for their future. It cannot be 100% the child's own decision. Depending on their previous experiences, a child may not be able to understand what a secure relationship is if they have no feeling of security from their past.

The question was raised as to how a couple could prove commitment if they are unable to marry? Legal commitment should not be used in a discriminatory manner. It was suggested that there would need to be strong evidence of a secure home, with shared finance, a community involvement of some type and longevity of their relationship. It was recognised that whatever the previous commitment between the couple, the dynamics would alter when a child joins the family. This needs careful preparation in advance.

It was asked if references should be taken from people who are not necessarily friends or related to the prospective adoptive parents, such as neighbours or colleagues.

There were split opinions as to whether or not a couple should be able to financially support any children they adopt. An adoptive parent explained that in some cases extra financial assistance is required as an adoptee might have special requirements and income should not be a barrier to a couple applying for adoption. Another strong belief was that fostering is a job and is a cheaper option for an authority than putting a child into a children's home: therefore foster parents should be paid; adoption, however, is different and is taking someone in as a family member. They should just be eligible for the usual statutory benefits available to families (eg, family allowance, tax credits etc).

Question 3: What support should be offered during the adoption process and after to adoptees, adoptive families and birth parents?

Adoptive parents need coping systems and support over basic childcare processes as their experience has not had the time to evolve in the same manner as birth families. This needs to be ongoing. All three groups (adoptees, adoptive parents and birth parents) should have access to local support groups so they do not feel isolated, "… a child coming into a household can create catastrophic changes to the adoptive family and they may need help in how to manage the change…"

The mixed views related to financial support, recorded in respect of the previous question, emerged here also. There was agreement that there might be an initial settling-in allowance and extra money if a child has special needs, but otherwise the group were divided in opinion. One view was that if there were adoptive siblings then division, disquiet or discrimination might occur within the family if an adopted child received special income. The other view was that it was helpful to have extra money and if there was ongoing support from professionals any problems within the family can be discussed. There was a suggestion that it might be easier if there was a means test so that if a family needed financial support it could be offered.

Support should involve training and counselling for adoptive parents and extended family if needed. It was agreed that the present system is inadequate. Families "….need to be able to deal with baggage brought to the new family..." by the adoptees. Adoptive parents may not be able to deal alone with a child who has attachment disorders and is unable to form relationships.

Birth parents should not be excluded from the support process. It should be offered to them so that possibly their children can keep open reasonable communication links. Ideally, birth and adoptive parents should work in unison so that adoptees can keep some kind of relationship with their birth family.

The child is the focus and their interests should override confidentiality and data protection matters. It was felt that adoptees should know their medical history if they request it and there should be a process where an adoptee can get their medical background.

It was suggested that to get this medical information it was not necessary to reveal the identity of a birth parent if this has been withheld. A GP should be able to pass on confidential medical information to the adoptees' GP and explain the implications of it. This should not just be at the point of adoption but throughout the adoptee's life, as some medical matters may only arise as the birth parents age.

If a full medical history of the birth parents is available at the start of the adoption process it should be shared with adoptive parents so they can make an informed (with support) decision about their ability to cope with the potential conditions that may develop in the child. This might deter some adoptions but it was felt that adoptive parents have the right to know if the information was already held by social workers.

The question was asked, "…what is in the best interests of the child?" It was felt that as adoption is a "long haul" then sharing of information was vital and in a child's best interests. Should it be compulsory to get a birth parent's medical history and how might an authority get this record, especially if a parent comes from a country where records may not have been kept? There was no conclusion, but there were questions as to whether a birth parent can be obliged to have a medical examination.

Should a GP or other medical specialist be able to disclose information about a birth parent and then not have any control over its confidentiality? Can a GP be requested to offer information about non-medical matters? There may be historical details or patterns of behaviour that might be relevant to adoption and the best interests of the child. The GP should not have discretionary powers to disclose relevant medical facts and extended family backgrounds if known or surmised.

Other points

What support is offered in private and international adoptions? If it is not offered, it should be. Also, if private adoptions are rare now, there are still many adults in Scotland who were adopted in this manner and their historical experiences and needs should not be ignored now.

In many cultures it is usual for the extended family to look after children - how would this fit into the Scottish model of adoption if they move to the UK? Would their relationship be seen as legal? How formal can extended family adoption be?

Page updated: Friday, February 24, 2006

Scottish Government