Adoption In England Research Articles

Names in adoption law and policy: representations of family, rights and identities

Names have heightened importance in adoption, affecting the identities of individuals who are adopted and adoptive family making. In this article, we use critical discourse analysis to gauge how names, and especially children’s forenames, are addressed in the specificities of legal and policy texts governing and guiding the milieu of people affected by adoption in England. We argue that the inclusions, omissions and opacity of content on names we uncover are outcomes of underlying representations of ‘family’ within the texts, whereby ‘family surnaming’ is constructed as the pre-eminent naming issue in adoption, above children’s forename-based identity rights. Our focus on names in adoption advances sociological understandings of the power of names in representing family relationships and individual identities, and of how official discourses of law and policy can privilege some types of relationships over others, and the rights of some family members over others.

Reasoning between Rules and Discretion: A Comparative Study of the Normative Platform for Best Interest Decision-Making on Adoption in England and Norway

Abstract This article examines discretionary reasoning in child’s best interest (CBI) assessments in two jurisdictions, England and Norway, in decision concerning adoption from care. The two countries’ systems differ in child protection orientations and levels of discretionary autonomy but share the legal and moral yardstick of the CBI. Judgments from the Family Court in England (n = 29) and the County Social Welfare Board in Norway (n = 29) are analysed through a qualitative content analysis, following the logics of practical reasoning. The analysis provided a rich and detailed testimony of how the CBI decisions were justified and reveal that a similar normative platform was guiding decisions across the countries. There were, however, differences within and between the countries in terms of application and justifications of norms, some of which are likely to be connected to different interpretations of the CBI and others to systemic constructions and discretionary structures. Moreover, having more legislative guidance may have contributed to more explicit and deliberative reasoning in England although it does not appear to ensure consistent or predictable reasoning as inconsistencies and variation were found in both contexts. However, while Norwegian judges’ deliberation was found to be less ‘balanced’, justifications were applied in a similar manner across judgements. Although this contributes to consistency and predictability, the use of non-democratically constituted ‘rules’ in decision-making poses a challenge for legitimate decision-making.

Reflections on how the implementation of sustainable development goals across the UK and Ireland can influence the mainstreaming of these goals in English planning practice

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are an ambitious and voluntary undertaking by governments to implement sustainable development. Many countries have been pursuing a process of localisation, in which local and regional priorities are rooted in the implementation of the SDGs. The UK’s implementation of SDGs has been hindered by its governance arrangements and the perspective that they are primarily for developing countries. A review of official UK parliamentary reports from 2016 to 2020 and the government’s Voluntary National Review (H.M. Government, 2019) have highlighted a knowledge gap and inconsistency in the implementation of the SDGs. Years of perma-reform in planning, resulting in policy turbulence, have further retarded their adoption in England. Devolution has led to a divergence in planning practice across the UK. The approach outside of England has been much more proactive. This article seeks to bridge this knowledge gap by reflecting on practice in the UK and Ireland and how this might influence the mainstreaming of the SDGs in future planning practice in England. Keywords: Development, devolution, goals, localisation, planning, reflection, sustainable, Sustainable Development Goals, UK, Ireland

Samantha M.Davey, A Failure of Proportion: Non‐Consensual Adoption in England and Wales, Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2020, 224 pp, pb, £54.00.

The Modern Law ReviewVolume 84, Issue 2 p. 417-420 REVIEW Davey, Samantha M., A Failure of Proportion: Non-Consensual Adoption in England and Wales, Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2020, 224 pp, pb, £54.00. Chris Barton, Corresponding Author Chris Barton cjbarton@sky.com Emeritus, Staffordshire University. email: cjbarton@sky.comSearch for more papers by this author Chris Barton, Corresponding Author Chris Barton cjbarton@sky.com Emeritus, Staffordshire University. email: cjbarton@sky.comSearch for more papers by this author First published: 26 August 2020 https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12575 Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Volume84, Issue2March 2021Pages 417-420 RelatedInformation

Adoption wars: inequality, child welfare and (social) justice

This article analyses the conflicts over adoption in England, focusing primarily on the reform programme during the years of coalition and subsequent Conservative governments, but recognising important historical antecedents and wider contexts. Various facets of adoption policy are considered, including processes through which children become available for adoption, alternative avenues for ‘permanence’, legal contestation, ‘openness’, approval of adoptive parents and the organisation of the adoption system. These, in turn, are examined in the contexts of inequalities and (social) justice, and future prospects are considered. It is argued that while ‘adoption wars’ have their own distinct features, they demonstrate significant alignment with the wider ‘culture wars’ between conservative/orthodox and liberal/progressive values.

Parenting under Adversity: Birth Parents’ Accounts of Inequality and Adoption

This paper aims to highlight inequality in current adoption processes and procedures in England and Wales. Whilst inequality has been recognised in adoption research, the role of social structures is often neglected. Inequality within social structures plays a role in the process of the permanent removal of children to be adopted and is worthy of further attention. Birth parent voices can contribute to a wider understanding of adoption, but often remain hidden. Empirical research findings highlight how birth parents may find that their adverse experiences are exacerbated by the adoption process, the emotional impact causing existing problems to increase, and through the impact of the adoption process on birth parent’s socio-economic status. Findings also illustrate how birth parents’ experiences were influenced by ideals of motherhood and ideas about ‘risk’ to children. The paper contributes to the growing area of research which illuminates the intersection of poverty, deprivation and child protection services and the wider contemporaneous debate concerning adoption in England and Wales.

Full adoption in England and Wales and France: a comparative history of law and practice (1926–2015)

Why do the British adopt far fewer children from abroad but more domestic children than the French? To examine this question, this article compares the history of adoption law and practice in France and England and Wales. Although these countries have had similar adoption laws since the 1920s, there have long been many more adoptions in England and Wales. This is partly due to the greater numbers of abused and neglected children being put forward for adoption in the UK. In addition, memories of the forced migration of children, coupled with heated debate over transracial adoption in the 1980s, cast doubt on the idea that intercountry adoption might benefit children. Consequently, local authorities give higher priority to the placement of children born in the UK with its system of open adoption. In contrast, French prospective adopters face a dearth of domestic children available for adoption and so turn their attentions overseas.

Public service or private affair? The application of ‘kinship by design’ to intercountry adoption in England

This article examines the status of intercountry adoption (ICA) within adoption and family policy in England by analysing the extent to which the preventive ideals of ‘kinship by design’ are applied to ICA, particularly in the provision of adoption support. The discussion is set in the context of adoption reform under the New Labour and Coalition governments, broader family policy ideals of prevention and early intervention and state objectives in adoption, as well as global policy standards. This article argues that ‘kinship by design’ is not equally applied to intercountry adoptive families in England.

Exploring the adoption of Schwartz Center Rounds as an organisational innovation to improve staff well-being in England, 2009–2015

ObjectivesSchwartz Center Rounds (‘Rounds’) are a multidisciplinary forum in which healthcare staff within an organisation discuss the psychological, emotional and social challenges associated with their work in a confidential and...

ADOPTION IN ENGLAND AND WALES

This is a comment on the article by Stephen Gay in this volume entitled ‘The Choice Between Adoption and Foster Care as Child Protection Responses’ It aims to provide a different perspective on the relative merits of adoption and foster care. The article begins in Part I by outlining the historical and legislative context of adoption in England and Wales. Part II offers some observations on several different measures available in this jurisdiction aimed at ensuring that the interests of children are protected, including the Special Guardianship Order, which was introduced in 2005.

Transracial adoption in England: a critical race and systems theory analysis

AbstractThe legal requirements of transracial adoption of children in England changed in 2014. An amendment to the law removed a requirement that due consideration be given to the ‘child's religious persuasion, racial origin and ethnic and linguistic background’. This change was motivated by the belief that to do so would increase the number of transracial adoptions and thus decrease the number of children in care awaiting adoption. The likelihood of this change being successful is examined through a combination of critical race theory and systems theory. The combination of these theories permits an investigation into the communications between the political, legal and child welfare systems. This paper offers an enriched evaluation of the interactions of the child welfare, legal and political systems that should be of use to those who work in those systems, as well as providing a basis for understanding why this legal amendment will not achieve its objectives.

‘Where nothing else will do’: judicial approaches to adoption in England and Wales

The judicial approach to making an adoption order where birth parents do not give their consent suddenly changed after a UK Supreme Court judgement in mid-2013, which examined the position in the light of the Human Rights Act 1998 – Re B [2013] UKSC 33. This article argues that this case did not set a higher threshold for such an order to be made but confirmed existing domestic and European human rights law. However, the unintended consequences of the judgement were an opportunity for the judiciary to take issue with government policy to increase the rate of adoption and with recent family justice reforms, which have constrained judicial oversight of care proceedings. An unprecedented rate of contested litigation, based on perceived shortcomings in social work assessments and judgements in the lower courts, has caused uncertainty and delays in planning for children, with a slowing in the rate of children being adopted, although with little evidence of any associated benefits for birth parents. It is concluded that the confusion caused for potential adopters and practitioners needs to be resolved, so that timely decision-making for children can be prioritised.

Family Finding and Matching in Adoption: What Helps to Make a Good Match?

This study compared the effectiveness and outcomes of different family finding methods in adoption in England, over-selecting harder to place children. The case files of 149 children with adoption recommendations in ten local authorities were reviewed and a sub-sample of sixty-seven cases were followed in real time, through interviews with professionals and families until six months after adoptive placement. Most matches were of good quality, but 14 per cent were fair and 13 per cent poor, involving serious compromises on matching requirements or adopters' preferences. There were more poor matches when in-house placements were made or children's difficulties were underplayed with new parents and, necessarily, more compromises were made when matching children with significant health or developmental needs. More good quality matches were made when case responsibility was transferred early to the adoption team. Poorer quality matches were related to poorer outcomes six months after adoptive placement. To improve matching, searches for families need to be widened early to avoid delays and to maximise the pool of adopters. Formal processes to track and review the progress of adoptions for children with complex needs (including matching meetings) can help avoid delay and ensure that a group of professionals, rather than an individual professional, makes key decisions.

Children Looked After

Children Looked After

‘Kinship by design’ in England: reconfiguring adoption from Blair to the coalition

AbstractUsing Ellen Herman's concept of ‘kinship by design’ (KBD), this paper analyses recent efforts to reform adoption in England, arguing that they represent an attempt to curtail the powers of adoption professionals and their established practices of assessing and responding to risk. Examining policy contexts and relevant research, the paper looks at various facets of contemporary KBD in England as they relate to adoptable children, the treatment of adopters, matching, support and systemic governance of adoption within a mixed economy. From this analysis, it is suggested that the evidence base for many of the reforms is limited and that in important respects represents a ‘manufactured crisis’ used to justify radical changes, which, in turn, pose significant risks to wider policy and practice in child welfare.

Book Review: A Child for Keeps: The History of Adoption in England, 1918'45

Book Review: A Child for Keeps: The History of Adoption in England, 1918'45

Birth parents’ perceptions of professional practice in child care and adoption proceedings: implications for practice

This paper explores non-relinquishing birth parents’ experiences of contested child care and adoption proceedings. It highlights the perceptions and voices of birth parents which are rarely prioritized in dominant discourses of professional practice in this area. The paper reviews previous related research and also discusses a small-scale empirical study which elicited the perspectives of three birth parents whose children had been made subject to care proceedings and placed for adoption in England. Drawing on previous research and this study, the paper makes range of practice recommendations for sensitive professional practice with birth parents during contested child care and adoption proceedings.

A Child for Keeps: The History of Adoption in England 1918-45. By Jenny Keating.

A Child for Keeps: The History of Adoption in England 1918-45. By Jenny Keating.

Jenny Keating, A child for keeps: the history of adoption in England, 1918–45. (Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009.) Pages 288. £50.00.

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

European household waste management schemes: Their effectiveness and applicability in England

This paper reviews European household waste management schemes and provides an insight into their effectiveness in reducing or diverting household waste. The paper also considers the feasibility of replicating such schemes in England. Selected case studies include those implemented using variable charging schemes, direct regulation and household incentivisation (reduced disposal charges). A total of 15 case studies were selected from developed countries in the EU where some schemes have operated for more than a decade. Criteria for assessing the effectiveness and replicability of schemes were developed using scheme progress towards targets, response time, compatibility with government policy, ease of administration and operation, and public acceptance as attributes. The study demonstrates the capability of these schemes to significantly reduce household waste and suggests changes to allow their possible adoption in England. One of the main barriers to their adoption is the Environmental Protection Act, 1990 that prevents English local authorities (LAs) from implementing the variable charging method for household waste management. This barrier could be removed through a change in legislation. The need to derive consistent data and standardise the method of measuring the effectiveness of schemes is also highlighted.