Executive Summary
Background Overview
A Scottish Executive consultation, "Safe and secure homes for our most vulnerable children" took place between 30 June 2005 and 31 October 2005. A total of 496 responses were received to the consultation and these came from a wide range of organisations and individuals with an interest in the adoption process in Scotland. The consultation document was also available on the Scottish Executive website.
The consultation document set out the background to the consultation and asked for views on a range of issues; including permanence orders, support for adoption, improving court rules and avoiding delays and access to information. This report provides a robust analysis of all responses to the consultation using both quantitative and qualitative analytical approaches. These findings will feed into legislation.
A programme of public consultation events was also conducted by the Scottish Civic Forum on behalf of the Scottish Executive and a series of qualitative discussions were undertaken by George Street Research. The findings from these additional elements have been incorporated into this report.
Overview of Respondents
The majority (77%) responded as individuals and 23% responded on behalf of organisations. The largest number of organisational responses was received from local authorities (n = 35) and religious and faith groups (n = 27).
Those responding as individuals primarily focused on a single issue - that of joint adoption by same-sex and / or unmarried couples. The majority of these individuals were resistant to the introduction of joint adoption by same-sex and / or unmarried couples.
Respondents commenting on each question posed in the consultation were broadly in agreement with recommendations, with the exception of recommendation 61. This recommended that there should be a centralised national system to appoint and train curators, reporting officers and safeguarders from which individual case appointments are made locally and that remuneration be paid centrally and should take account of the varying amounts of work required in individual cases.
The aim of a consultation exercise is to enable anyone who wishes to, to express their views. This final report is intended to reflect these views and responses as accurately as possible, even if they are founded on inaccurate perceptions or misinterpretations.
In our reporting we distinguish between professionals / organisations and individuals. The former generally commented from the viewpoint of those working in a professional capacity within the adoption sector; the latter from the viewpoint of individuals within the general public, some of whom had been affected by the adoption process. Responses from individuals tended to focus very much on the issue of joint adoption by unmarried or same-sex couples. Often the views of professionals / organisations and individuals were in opposition to each other on this specific subject.
Who should adopt? What should be the criteria for adoption? Whose views should be considered in the adoption process?
Across professionals / organisations responding to this consultation, there was a general view that adoption needs to reflect society and law. So, for example, if the law recognises unmarried couples in the same light as married couples, adoption legislation should follow this.
Overall, views were that the welfare of the child to be adopted should be placed above all other factors in the decision making process. A greater proportion of professionals / organisations responding on this specific subject supported the need to introduce legislation that will allow for a couple to jointly adopt, and for the range of those able to adopt to be extended to include same-sex couples and unmarried couples. However, the large majority of individuals responding to this consultation were of the view that same-sex and unmarried couples should not be allowed to adopt. Furthermore, there was significant support from individuals for a conscience clause if adoption was opened up to same-sex and unmarried couples.
A wide variety of criteria was cited as being important for any adoptive parents to meet and these included:
- a capacity to offer a loving, stimulating and supportive home
- demonstrating that a relationship is stable, responsible and loving
- a demonstration of permanence in the relationship
Criteria of importance focused less on the financial status of adoptive parents and more on their capacity to offer emotional support and a stable family environment.
There were some calls for guidance to be issued by the Scottish Executive on the criteria to be examined in determining the best interests of the child, particularly as there is a current lack of consistency in adoption practice.
Permanence Orders and the Role of Hearings Systems in Permanence Orders
The introduction of a Permanence Order was welcomed by the majority of those responding to the consultation, and those who had little or no understanding of the range of alternatives to adoption were broadly supportive of anything that would serve to simplify the adoption process. However, there were concerns that clear procedures, guidance and training are needed and that the introduction of a Permanence Order could serve to increase the complexity of the system. Furthermore, there was also a degree of concern that if Permanence Orders are too flexible they may be counter-productive.
While a higher number of consultees preferred to have the Court take the lead in Permanence Orders, others cited the need for ongoing involvement by Children's Hearings, although the role of the Children's Hearings needs to be clearly explained.
Support for Adoption
There was widespread support for adoption support services to be extended to all parties involved in adoption, and for the range of these support services to be extended. However, a number of respondents commented on the issue of staffing resources and funding that would be required to introduce this range of services.
Of those commenting in the consultation on a national scheme of adoption allowances, the majority were in favour of this being introduced. However, respondents participating in the qualitative research were relatively split as to whether or not they supported this scheme and most of those attending Scottish Civic Forum events did not think that adoptive parents should be paid an allowance. Those who were supportive of an allowance being paid to adoptive parents felt that these should only be considered on a case-by-case basis.
In terms of the range of services that could be offered, respondents focused more on emotional and therapeutic counselling support than financial support.
A range of individuals - including grandparents, siblings and other family members - were considered to have entitlement to adoption support, although once again respondents highlighted resource and funding implications of extending these services. Some respondents noted the need for a national agency to provide support services.
There were also calls for any services to be publicised widely in order to ensure that all individuals are aware of services that can be accessed.
There was general agreement that there was a need for local authorities to have an adoption support officer within the senior management team, although the issue of funding for this post was raised by a small number of respondents. The key advantages to this role were that it would aid consistency across all local authorities and help with the dissemination and sharing of good practice and guidance across Scotland.
A majority of respondents agreed that a local authority placing a child for adoption should have responsibility for providing adoption support services to the child and adoptive family for three years after the adoption order. However, there were comments that, regardless of which local authority has responsibility for providing adoption support services, these services need to be delivered at a local level. Additionally, there need to be clear lines of communication between local authorities involved in a specific adoption case.
Improving Court Rules and Avoiding Delays
There were concerns that the existing court rules serve to prolong the adoption process and that this is to nobody's advantage. The majority of those responding to the consultation question agreed with the need for a system of leave to apply to court. Similarly, a majority supported legislation that would require the applicant to produce new evidence or evidence of a significant change in circumstances to support an application for leave.
Again, the majority of those commenting supported the suggestion for legislation to limit the circumstances in which an applicant could seek information about an adopted child in support of an application to court.
Curators, Reporting Officers and Safeguarders
The Scottish Executive has rejected recommendation 61 of the APRG report. This recommended that there should be a centralised national system to appoint and train curators, reporting officers and safeguarders from which individual case appointments are made locally and that remuneration be paid centrally and should take account of the varying amounts of work required in individual cases. The majority of respondents commenting on this specific item noted that the Executive should reconsider its decision to reject this recommendation.
The key reason for backing this recommendation related to the issue of training and the need for a national approach to training to help ensure consistency in practice across Scotland as a whole.
Role of the Children's Hearings System in Permanence Cases
There was broad support for ongoing inclusion of the Children's Hearings System in permanence cases. The key issue raised for a number of these recommendations was in relation to the need for additional training for individuals involved with the Children's Hearings System.
There were also calls to ensure clarity in understanding the role of the Children's Hearings System and some suggestions of the need to promote consistency by having one member of the panel who is continuous throughout a specific case.
There were also some calls to put the findings from this consultation alongside that undertaken on the Children's Hearings System and the 21 st Century Social Work Review. This, it was felt, would help to provide a framework for permanency planning.
Fostering Issues
There was broad agreement on the need for a national scale of fostering allowances and none of the consultees responding to this specific issue opposed this proposal. References were also made with regards to including kinship care as a need.
Some queries were raised over the need for funding to support this specific recommendation and some respondents (primarily professionals / organisations) suggested a minimum allowance should be set that also offers a degree of flexibility to meet the needs of different circumstances. There was support for the Scottish Executive issuing guidance containing national scales of allowances, although there were some concerns that independent providers would not agree to a national scale.
Views on the proposed working group on private fostering were largely supportive, with some organisations perceiving a need for more work on the private fostering system and a need for legislative reform.
However, some organisations perceived a need to clarify the role of local authorities and other government bodies. The need for standardised assessment, support and safeguards was raised by some consultees, along with a need to develop guidelines and procedures.
Procedures Within Local Authorities and Agencies
A number of organisations stated their support for the recommendations covered in this section of the consultation document.
There was agreement that procedures within local authorities and agencies could be changed with a number of suggestions being made for this. Additionally, there were requests that whatever changes are introduced, training coupled with clear guidance needs to be provided.
While there was general support for an independent review body to consider appeals and for fostering panels to be involved in reviews of foster carers at regular intervals, some consultees focused on the need to have clear guidance and a clear process for appeals rather than independent panels.
There was a call for communication between different local authorities and agencies to improve and also for services to be delivered at a local level across Scotland.
Access to Information
There was general agreement that medical information should be available either directly to adoptive parents or via a third party such as a GP, and that this should then be made available to an adopted child once they reach a certain age. While there were some concerns over confidentiality and data protection, the interests of an adopted child were generally felt to be paramount. As such, in instances where birth parents were not willing to have information passed on, most respondents considered that these views should be disregarded.
While medical information was perceived to be essential information, there were also some requests for more general information on family history to be made available.