To review the effectiveness of the adoption service and to approve the adoption service statement of purpose. 

The cabinet member for young people and children’s wellbeing introduced the report. He noted that the adoption service was performing well and had been judged as good at its most recent inspection by Ofsted. A total of 29 children were adopted in 2015/16 which was an unprecedented number. The cabinet member stated that the council should be proud of the reputation of its adoption service but that it should not be complacent. He noted that the work of the service supported objectives in the children and young people’s plan and reduced costs to the council.

The adoption service manager outlined the adoption process. She explained the stages each child would go through and noted that adoption would only proceed if it was demonstrably in the best interests of the child. Court proceedings were sometimes lengthy and it could take time to find suitable adopters, especially when the child had complex needs. As a result the manager noted that the figures in the report represented a snapshot of the point children had reached in the process. Some of the children who had adoption orders granted in 2015/16 would have first been considered for adoption in previous years.

The adoption service manager reported that overall there had been a national downturn in the number of children approved for adoption by the courts but that Herefordshire had seen an increase over the same period. The number of people coming forward as potential adopters had decreased both nationally and locally.

The cabinet member for health and wellbeing welcomed the report and congratulated the service on their performance. She noted the positive benefits for the children concerned and for the council in terms of lower draw on resources. She encouraged officers to continue working towards an outstanding rating in future inspections.

A group leader asked which agencies were responsible for cases failing to meet the target for stage 1 of the process and what the reasons were. The adoption service manager explained that at stage 1 the council would request information on potential adopters which included criminal records checks from relevant police forces, medical reports and references from a range of different sources. She stated that as stage 1 was adopter led the onus was on the potential adopter to provide the information requested. She reported that in general checks with the local police force were completed promptly but that where a potential adopter had lived outside the area or abroad this could take much longer.

A group leader asked how many cases that reached court were refused. The head of looked after children replied that although precise details were not at hand the numbers were very small as it was usual to reach that stage in the process without having explored all other avenues.

The cabinet member for infrastructure asked if cases of siblings needing adoption presented a particular problem and what the impact could be if placements broke down. The head of looked after children responded that it was sometimes difficult to find families willing to adopt multiple children at the same time. Where the sibling group was more than 2 children it was especially difficult. The adoption service would always consider the impact of separation of siblings and whether it would be appropriate to maintain contact between siblings adopted separately. If it was judged important to maintain family links then children could remain looked after.

The cabinet member for young people and children’s wellbeing stated that children came into the adoption system for a wide variety of reasons.

A cabinet support member asked if the adoption service reviewed social media when considering the suitability of prospective adopters. The adoption service manager stated that this was not currently a formal part of the process although information would sometimes be brought to their attention. The reviewing of social media content was being discussed by adoption agencies nationally but there were many issues that would need to be considered in any policy change. The manager noted that adopters were given advice in training about the use of social media after the adoption to protect both children and their birth families from inappropriate or unwanted contact.

The leader asked what the current average length of time to achieve adoption was. The adoption service manager referred to the figures given in the report namely that the overall average was 21 months but that this included some extreme outliers which skewed the figures.

The leader asked if the progress of adopted children was tracked and compared to other children. The adoption service manager explained that once the adoption was complete the child was treated as though they were born into that family and no specific tracking of this nature was in place. Adoptive families were encouraged to contact the service if they needed help and support after the adoption. National research showed that adoption was the best outcome for children in most cases.

A cabinet support member noted that Herefordshire had excellent foster carers so that where there were delays in the adoption process this did not mean that children were not receiving care and support.

The leader thanked the adoption team for their work and recognised the service as a source of pride for the council.

Resolved that:

a)    the performance of the adoption service as outlined at appendix A to the report be reviewed, risks to achievement of objectives were noted and relevant mitigating actions approved; and

b)    the statement of purpose attached at appendix B to the report be approved.