Labouring over the rebirth of adoption

In 2000, Prime Minister Tony Blair ordered a review of adoption policy and practice as he considered systemic problems limited successful adoptive outcomes for children. The White Paper (2000) outlined ‘major problems,’ regarding prospective adopters, including the finding that the application procedure was unfair and biased. There was also concern that post-placement support for adoptive families was inadequate. In response, the Labour government introduced a multi-pronged approach which included monetary investment, setting targets for the numbers of children to be adopted and creating legislation to modernise the legal framework (HMSO, 2000). New adoption standards established what those involved in adoption could expect and included six-month timescales to decide on a prospective adopter’s application. This top-down governmental approach included structural changes and consequences for the adoption agencies that did not conform; additionally, performance

35 targets were to be set, measured, and published. Importantly, at no point in the White Paper (2000) was there any consideration of the experience and purpose of adoption in 21st British society.

Blair’s premiership oversaw the enactment of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, which came into full effect on 30^th December 2005 replacing the Adoption Act 1976. In doing so, the 2002 Act sought to ensure that, as in the substantive Children Act 1989, a child’s best interests are central to decisions made relating to adoption. There was now a duty placed upon Local Authorities to provide and maintain support services for adoptive parents. Notably, although there is provision to support contact between adopted children and their birth relatives, the focus of supportive services is on the maintenance of adoptive families. A formative principle underpinning both the 1989 and 2002 Acts is that delay in making decisions to secure permanence in planning for a child was considered prejudicial to their welfare. Interestingly, Clapton and Clifton (2016) divide the history of adoption into pre-post 1980 era’s which they define as (pre) the relinquishing of babies to childless couples and (post) an alternative method by which the state could provide permanent care for

‘looked after children’. Although their view has merit, this simplified paradigm negates the complexities that have remained present in the history of adults becoming parental figures for children not born to them.

As this chapter demonstrates, constructing the children adopted before 1980 as ‘voluntary relinquishment’ (Clapton & Clifton, 2016, p.154) dismisses the dominant social-biological forces that did not support the poor and the unmarried parents (mainly mothers) of children born outside of marriage.

To increase the potential for children to achieve permanence via adoption, the 2002 Act extended who could apply for an Adoption Order and included unmarried couples whether of different or same sex. The Adoption and Children Act 2002 increased the restrictions upon prospective adopters adopting a child internationally. However, it also introduced a mechanism where they could appeal and seek an independent review if they were not approved to adopt a child

36 domestically. Thus there is a suggested presumption of approval for those who come forward to adopt which echoes the high regard for adopters discussed throughout this chapter. Positively, the Children and Adoption Act 2006 permits the Secretary of State to suspend international adoptions if there are concerns about a country’s adoption practices. This legislative approach supports the United Nations Convention on the rights of the child, which advocates recognising the value of continued relationships, religious persuasion, racial origin, cultural and linguistic background.

Similarly, these principles are reflected in domestic law with the 2006 Act making provision for the enforcement of a child arrangement order for contact under s8 of the Children Act 1989.

Further changes arose via the Children and Families Act 2014, which removed the duty upon Local Authorities to consider a child’s ethnicity when matching with an adoptive parent. This change in policy reflects the continuing dominance of white middle-class heteronormative values and the positioning of children from Black, Asian and Minority groups as ‘hard to place’. Another notable change in the 2014 Act related to the enactment of the foster-to-adopt route to becoming an adoptive parent.

In this scenario, people receive approval for the two-fold role of fostering and adoption. This legislative change aims to reduce the disruption of care experienced by children and in turn, requires prospective adopters to consider if they could assume this dual role. The expansion of who can be an adoptive parent and the additional routes to adoption take place amid the Government’s commissioning of a competitive child adoption market.

Furthermore, the growth of this marketplace was led by quantitative targets that saw marketing officers become crucial to the successful recruitment of prospective adopters (Clifton & Neil, 2013). Arguably, understanding this ever-changing context is vital to identifying the way in which enduring socio-political dynamics interweave into the experiences of contemporary prospective adopters (Keating, 2001; O'Halloran, 2009).

Change in the early part of the 21^st Century was not limited to legislation, and in August 2015, the highly regarded British Association of Adoption and Fostering (BAAF) charity, which had led been integral to the

37 development of adoption research, policy and maintained the adoption register succumbed to economic adversity. CoramBAAF was founded to continue to work of BAAF; its aims include the promotion of practice, standards and, understanding of the implications of adoption across the UK. However, CoramBAAF did not assume responsibility for maintaining the UK Adoption of Children register, which was instead taken up independent bodies for each of Britain’s four-country nations.