Hopefully this will be the final installment of what has become something of a marathon.
Context :
Firstly, orientation :
The original Marilyn Stowe blog is here.
Our original reply is here (part 1).
Mr Hemming’s response on his blog is here (23/8).
Our part 2 is here.
Mr Hemming also updated his 23/8 post on 31/8 (wrongly dated 31/7) here.
John Hemming has helpfully sent us the original spreadsheet and covering emails from the DfE and we can now see where they came from. It doesn’t seem that the original source is SSDA903, and they don’t come with any workings or explanations of assumptions applied, but these do appear to be stats produced by the DfE and there is no particular reason to think they are inaccurate. They show :
- the numbers of children UNDER 5
- excluding s20 children
- who ceased to be looked after as at y/e Mar 14
- and why
We can compare that with the stats for all looked after children of all ages, but we can’t disaggregate s20 / non s20 children in the over 5 group. We would *guess* that the number of children over 5 who left care for adoption from s20 is pretty small, but we don’ t know.
So, we can see that :
5,050 children of all ages, including s20 left care through adoption in the year to end Mar 14.
Of those 52% were unopposed, 48% consent dispensed with.
Of those 5,050 children adopted some 73% were under 5 (excluding any under 5s who were accommodated under s20 and who were then placed for adoption – probably not a high figure). Accordingly, only 27% of all children leaving for adoption were either over 5 or were under 5 but on s20). We think it is pretty clear that a higher proportion of under 5s leave care for adoption than older children, but we didn’t need these stats to tell us that as it is widely accepted.
We’ve worked out the reason for our startlingly high 78% of over 5 adoptions being unopposed – we got the adding up wrong! We’ve updated our part 1 to reflect that. So it is not a flaw in the statistics after all – our human error not theirs. This means we no longer need to ask the DfE for an explanation.
In fact, the stats show that a higher proportion of children over 5 (or s20) left through opposed adoption (66%) than in the under 5 group (52%). We don’t think that is surprising – for children over 5 there is more likely to be a good basis for arguing that adoption is not achievable, high risk or otherwise not in the best interests of a child – and less draconian options like long term foster care or special guardianship are more likely to be suitable / have more advantages for children. So we would expect to see those arguments being run more often, even if they don’t always succeed.
In his further update Mr Hemming says
It is true that in a small number of cases the application does not result in an ICO or Care Order. From memory it is around 3% of applications (according to MoJ statistics) that do not result in an ICO or Care Order.
We doubt that 97% of care applications result in an interim care order. Many children remain at home (perhaps with supervision orders) or are placed with family members and interim care orders are not required. We think that happens in more than 3% of cases.
We doubt that 97% of care applications result in a care order. Many result in special guardianship, or supervision orders, or no order.
We doubt that 97% of care applications result in a public law order (care or supervision order).
It is conceivable that 97% of care applications result in either an interim care order or a full care order – but we think it is unlikely. We think that the number of children in proceedings who have been excluded from Mr Hemming’s under 5 statistics because of their s20 status could have a significant impact on the statistics overall. We know that John Hemming’s numbers exclude 2,620 s20 children under 5. That represents 9% of all children leaving care in the period in question. John Hemming is right that some of these children will not have been subject to proceedings – but not all. And we think that if you are looking at how readily the system resorts to adoption you have to look at ALL the ways the system manages risk and all the solutions the state utilises instead of adoption – one of those mechanisms is s20 accommodation with or without proceedings running alongside. Why would you ignore 9% of the children who haven’t been adopted when looking at how commonly or readily adoption is resorted to?
Hemming says
It remains that the outcome of adoption from care without parental consent is commonplace rather than exceptional. There is, in fact, no real threshold distinction between dispensing with parental consent and simply adopting from care. That is not in accordance with international law. We can argue about the 3% of cases which start with S20, but do not end with a care order of any kind, but that does not make a substantial different to the point that the system as a whole is unlawful.
It is not the purpose of this post to say whether Mr Hemming is right to hold his opinion about the approach to adoption. Our focus has been upon whether the evidence relied upon makes good the assertion. However, we don’t think that the assertion that adoption is commonplace rather than exceptional or that the system as a whole is unlawful can be made good by statistics alone (for reasons explored in parts 1 and 2).
Finally, we’re going to deal with a point Mr Hemming raises about quotas, in Merton and elsewhere, in another post. We’re doing some work on that because we think Mr Hemming raises an important point that worries a lot of people and we want to get it right.
I have looked at the 2011 stats and as far as applications for care orders go over 95% end in care orders.
I think the burden of proof lies with you on this now. I am comfortable that I have the cohort of children subject to care proceedings (not supervision). Remember also that I am looking at trends since 1995 as well.
Lucy,
government policy is now, rightly or wrongly, that 5 and over is too old the adopt, hence the rise in numbers of babies and young children.
I am surprised two top F C barristers are not better informed on this.
The fairly stable statistic is you have a 97.3 % chance of losing your case.
This includes children going to family members/foster carers on residence orders and special guardianships.
Adoption has been the preferred solution for 40 years since Forced Adoption was introduced in the mid.70’s
As I posted before it is virtually certain these statistics are based on parents not showing up to oppose the actual adoption order or didn’t get leave to oppose at the actual adoption hearing.
It is likely the true figures are something like 98 % PERMISSION DISPENSED WITH. 2% WITH PERMISSION.
What we need is the figure for the number of forms signed to give permission for the child to be adopted.
If an adoption is unopposed the witnessed forms giving permission to adopt should be signed, not using a placement order.
Very, very few adoptions with permission have taken pace since the ’70’s , so it looks as though what is meant by “Unopposed” actually means the parents failed to show up to the actual Adoption hearing to adopt the child or failed to get permission to adopt.
Which policy are you referring to, WS? It is generally accepted that over 5 is much more difficult but am not sure I have seen a specific policy.
I’m not sure I see the range of outcomes as a simple case of “win” v “lose”. There are a variety of possible outcomes – in some cases keeping or getting your child back under a supervision order should rightly be classed as a big “win”, but I would guess fall within your 97.3%.
I agree with you some of the “unopposed” might include some disengagement cases, or some where parents attend and neither consent nor oppose – although if this is right the stats are not being properly recorded, because their consent still needs to be dispensed with by law.
that of HMG.
it is effective policy because of difficulties in behaviour of the child, breakdown of the adoption and the desire to increase adoptions.
If the parents do not consent or oppose the adoption it means a Placement Order.
Clearly unless the parents get permission to apply to discharge the order, do not get permission to oppose the adoption order or fail to appear to oppose it, all these are being recorded as the ADOPTION ORDER being unopposed.
They all had placement orders.
If at the final hearing by law any case of agreeing or not opposing must be dealt with by signing the CAFCASS witnessed form.
The cases of agreeing to the adoption must in fact be very, very small.
Thesewillbe very,veryfew.
Yes, but what is the name of the policy and where can I find it?
As to the rest of your comment I think we were at cross purposes – I was talking about opposing the making of placement orders – you were quite correctly talking about opposition to the making of adoption orders. Yes, many of those will be unopposed because consent having been dispensed with at PO stage, the majority of parents don’t have leave to oppose the adoption order when the application is made. Sorry for confusing things.
There is no such policy re over 5’s. You are right when you write about the risk of disruption being higher in over 5’s, research evidences this is nothing to do with age, but everything to do with the impact of a child’s early years history. The antecedents lead to greater risks of disruption and behavioural issues. The significant correlation is probably the risks that those children take as teenagers. The neurobiology is very helpful on this, as synapse pruning takes place in adolescence, there is a correlation between the toddler who isn’t protected and the teenager who doesn’t have the capacity to self protect. Having said all of that, there are some adopters for some of those children, if that turns out to be the right plan for that child.
You are presuming that the statistics are correct in the first place. I know of 3 separate cases whereby the social worker has taken the law into her own hands and dispensed with the need for court altogether. One of those cases triggered a Judicial Review, the mention of which scurried the social workers to change where they had placed the child (effect was there was then nothing to Judicially Review). Another of those cases the Court staff have admitted, in writing, that it was a ‘clerical error’ to issue an Interim Care Order, despite that it was a private law case and no such order was ever even mentioned, let alone considered by the Judge. Pity for the family tat they didn’t admit to their ‘error’ until 4 years later. In another instance the social worker placed the child away from the family home without ever going to court, and then pretended that the child lived at home throughout the whole period. Its this complete lack of accountability that has the family courts in such disrespect.