This year state Adoption had its 100th birthday.
This is the second part of my look at how we got to where we are (Part1) and this part – what I feel we need to consider as we move into the next century of Adoption, Guardianship and Kinship arrangements.
Over the century things have changed and there are now other ways of ‘achieving permanence’ other than adoption. As each nation that makes up the UK has a different set of regulations then there will be variations in how permeance is supported.
This is written from the English perspective where I have all of my personal and most of my professional experience. However, I do believe that similar conclusions can be applied to the other nations.
The issues that I believe need support, information and guidance in adoption and Guardianship and Kinship moving forward -
Is it needed? - I’ll leave this one here as it needs and airing, although it isn’t really the focus of this blog – in individual cases does it really need to get this far? Well yes in maybe the majority, but in all cases maybe not. When I think about some of the young people who have lived with us, who have moved on or are still loved and part of our family I often wonder whether a similar effort and funding could have been invested that would have allowed them to stay in the family home, but that is a totally different discussion for another day.
Prebirth impacts- some of the reasons why younger children and young people are taken into care can be tracked back to things that happened before they were even born. That legacy reaches forward into their adult lives and all the love in the world and stability on their own aren’t quite enough to address the impacts. Why is this particularly important in adoption is that the vast majority who are adopted are removed at birth or very soon after being born due to factors that make staying with their birth mother difficult if not impossible. It is this cohort that often are swept up into adoption and kinship arrangements to ensure that they get the permanency and consistent nurture from as early an age as possible.
In essence this is the nature part of the nature / nurture debate and in my experience equally as important as the impact of positive parenting experiences.
It’s quite true to say that each and every pregnancy is different and even with twins who shared the same womb the impact of prebirth factors can be different. Of course, no young person remembers what it was like in the womb, but what happens does have a lasting legacy.
We know that there are factors that if they are in place will contribute to healthy babies and the best possible start in life. The impact of that healthy start stretches into adulthood. The flip side of that coin is that we know that there are also factors that will mean that the pregnancy will be less healthy and the start in life will run less smoothly. We also know that some issues also have long lasting impacts on the health and wellbeing of the baby.
Some of these factors are well known- poverty, maternal ill health & stress, domestic violence, eating soft cheeses, pate or undercooked eggs, vising farms where there are pregnant sheep, smoking in pregnancy and the use of prescription & illegal drugs. Alcohol is still a less well-known factor in impacting development, wellbeing and health, but it is probably the most significant.
Adoptive families and special guardians should be made aware of prebirth histories. Often, they don’t get all of the information that they need to really understand the impact that prebirth experiences will have had.
I know that I often speak about the impact of prenatal alcohol exposure and FASD, you can look at my blogs to see that detail, but in this context, I would say that FASD is a huge issue in children with care experience, in those who move on to adoptive families or have special guardianship orders.
In the rigorous study in Peterborough in 2015 it was found that 75% of children who moved onto adoption were exposed to alcohol in the womb. That is a huge number but reflects the fact that it was the younger children, removed from their birth families early in their lives that were considered for adoption. Prenatal alcohol exposure doesn’t always translate into FASD, but in less scientific surveys - Adoption UK consistently puts the figure in adoption at between 30% & 35% of adoptees who have FASD. The Peterborough research didn’t look at those who went to live with friends and family, but the charity Kinship suggests that in families who enter into Kinship arrangements the figure is as high as 40% of the children and young people who have FASD.
FASD and the prenatal experience is something that everyone should know about and that should be built into plans for children’s future so that they receive appropriate support and guidance at the correct time to ensure that they reach their potential. Sadly, we are nowhere near that yet.
So, onto the nurture part of development.
Adverse childhood experiences (ACE’s)- Brains are shaped and learn how to function with repeated life experiences. If those experiences are good enough in a nurturing environment, then the neural pathways that are developed will mean that understanding, responses and behaviour will be what is expected in the society that we live in.
However, brains where the early stimulation is less positive for whatever the reason still develop and wire themselves in response to those less desirable experiences. Nothing is ever neutral; there is always some impact. With the less desirable inputs the brain responds so that the person can cope with that environment. Sometimes the impact can overwhelm the person.
Prebirth impacts aren’t considered in the body of evidence that makes up the theory about how ACE’s impact all aspects of later childhood and adult life and lead to acquired brain injuries. However, we know what happens in childhood specially early in a child’s life will impact how they understand the world around them, will contribute to their ability to learn and make academic progress, will steer careers and can sow the seeds for adult health and wellbeing. Experiencing multiple ACE’s has been shown to significantly reduce all of the indicators of a successful and happy adult life. The research really is that stark.
Of course, it doesn’t need to be this way and if preventative and compensatory experiences (PACE’s) are put in place early enough then the outcomes can be and are different to those that the research suggests. Increasingly this research is underpinning legislation and guidance looking to improve the health and wellbeing of our communities. However, this is a conscious decision, and the expertise and resources need to be in place to assessment and then meet the need.
As with the prenatal conditions the people with parental roles need to understand just what the ACE’s were and only then can they seek out appropriate and informed PACE’s to make the difference in later life. Often in children removed from their families this history isn’t clear or well communicated.
One of the significant ACE’s is experiencing traumatic events in childhood. The impacts of multiple traumatic events or one single huge trauma can often cause acquired brain damage as established loses some of its ability to function and this can take years to correct, if at all.
Sadly, for someone where a decision is taken to remove them from the family that they were born into, there are quite likely to have been multiple ACE’s. The removal just being one of them.
Changing homes and primary carers is just one of the traumatic events that impact the group of young people that we are considering. Other less desirable life experiences shape the response that the brain makes to living and these can become hard wired into the way that the brain functions. In adoptive and special guardianship families and in kinship care some of those established neural pathways need to be dismantled and new pathways established that reflect the nurture that is given. This really isn’t easy and the effort and skills required to do this are often not recognised by people where they are making observations of the family and parenting.
Brain based and therapeutic parenting has to be different to traditional parenting as the starting point and the journey is different. Sadly, this can be interpreted as a parenting fail by parenting at a lower developmental stage than chronological age. It becomes too easy then to suggest that the young person might be at risk of emotional harm, nothing is actually further from the truth.
Trauma informed parenting does have its role to play. Based on a huge body of research we are now much, much better at recognising those signs and presentations and putting support in place to address those needs. That is all well and good, but when there are multiple factors in play then balances change and suddenly tried and tested strategies don’t work quite so well. After all a brain that was organically damaged in the womb can still be adversely affected by ACE’s. All the excellent trauma informed practice in the world will not get to the organic foundation of the brain. In this scenario, the most recent research is indicating that approaches that recognise the foundation of the brain need to underpin the trauma informed practice.
Of course, in adoption and kinship, this very scenario may be affected as many as 40% of the cohort and that in a nutshell is why parenting in these circumstances is really tiring and simply more difficult.
Systemic impacts- Overall support for this cohort of young people has improved, at least on paper. If it works well, it works well, it is hugely beneficial and contributes to health wellbeing and outcomes. However, it’s been slow and hasn’t reached all of the families that it should.
Children who never spent a day within the care system are the perfect example of this. There are many entirely understandable and highly emotional reasons that children are bypassed by the care system. The tie that means relatives and friends spring into action to ‘save’ the child from experiencing care is admirable and entirely human. Sometimes this is encouraged by the care system which is more questionable.
The ideal would be that every child would have their needs assessed and the appropriate supports and reasonable adjustments made that would allow them to flourish regardless of any status or journey. It really shouldn’t be too much to expect from a civilised country and one of the richest nations in the world and yet it is. Not that making the changes required would be outrageously expensive, just that they need to be thought about and consistently applied.
At the time of writing in England the one day in care interpretation should get you access to Post Adoption Support, the Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund (ASGSF), Pupil Premium Plus (PP+) funding in school and greater understanding. I am aware that it is different in the countries that make up the UK again something that just makes things harder to advise on.
I believe that these should be open to all, in some form so that appropriate support can be targeted where there is need. We have a long way to go to get that to happen.
Then there is the uncertainty. The ASGSF has never been secure. It’s been renewed at the last minute when successive governments have been lobbied relentlessly. I know because I’ve been in the Department of Education doing just that on a number of occasions. It was removed completely when a new government came to power with huge implications not only for my children but thousands of families. When reinstated its value was more than halved, so that it could ‘reach more families in need’, without any understanding of the need or an impact assessment. Currently it is in place until March 2028 but with no indication of whether it will continue, be replaced or just cease. Uncertainty breads anxiety that is never, ever healthy.
Further uncertainty is found in the speed that applications can be processed and far too often families are in limbo waiting for decisions to be made, forms to be filled in, assessments made and panels meet. The drift and delay without a doubt can and does cause further damage. Actions need to be timely and fast tracked.
On paper PP+ now provides for previously looked after children and young people in England up to the end of Year 11 if they are in state schools. I’m proud to say that this stemmed from a conversation that I had with the then Children’s Minister a couple of decades ago when I went in to speak with him about Fostering. This is not an insubstantial amount – an extra £2,690 for the financial year 2026/27. I am now far less pleased with how it works for care experienced children.
For Looked After Children, the Virtual School controls the budget and release into schools as part of the personal education plan process. Funds are targeted and the success should be evaluated. In theory at least a need could be identified that would mean that more than 100% of the notional grant for a single student could be awarded. No, I’m not holding my breath on that actually happening, but in theory it could and should in the role of corporate parent.
For care experienced children its not so monitored, focused or evaluated. If the school knows that pupils are care experienced and if this is included on the annual school census, then funds are released directly to the school on a termly basis. Not so long ago as a parent in such circumstances (and a school governor) I have had to argue that case very forcefully with staff in the school who just refused to apply as ‘my son wasn’t entitled’. Staff thinking that they knew better than me about the rules which is irksome when I was responsible for starting the discussions with the children’s minister at the time that led to PP+ for adopted children. So even letting the school know doesn’t guarantee that they will do the right thing.
The funds often go into a pot and too often the child for whom the funds were granted don’t see much if any of it. For my son in his final year (same school) in secondary not a single additional penny was spent on him even though we requested it and there was a demonstratable need.
If you ask as a parent what it has been spent on the reply is often, ‘we don’t have to tell you’ or ‘its for general use’. If you focus on the fact that the school have identified that a student isn’t reaching their potential despite planning, I believe it’s reasonable to suppose that PP+ might fund some of their needs. This very often falls on very deaf ears. In essence in this cohort, this key support mechanism often never reaches the children who need it and whose presence in the school attracts the funding in the first place and often there is no additional support to force the argument that funding is there for help.
Post 16 a different set of criteria kick in called the 16 – 19 bursaries released to support vulnerable young people. You’d think that children like we are talking about would meet the criteria, but no they have changed and often those children who move to a new family early in their lives are specifically removed from getting the bursary as they were not in care during the middle of the secondary school career. That means that although needs still exist, they may or may not have been funded in secondary’s school, but all hope of fund the needs disappear in college or sixth form, because they weren’t in care recently enough.
Then there is also a limbo with SGO’s when the order ceases at the age of 18 and the young person is legally cut adrift from the family who have been caring for them for all or most of their lives. I’ll address this in the future SGO blog.
Information and secrecy- They say that knowledge is key and for this cohort that is absolutely the case. I’d divide it into three categories -
Parents – Ideally and for the best outcomes everyone should be on the same page, share the same information and behave consistently towards the young person. When children are adopted or have alternative arrangements made that information isn’t always available or if it is, it’s not always shared.
I have talked about information about the prenatal environment earlier, but we also know that too often family medical history is lost causing real anxiety when medical staff ask for it when investigating a presentation or seeking a diagnosis. In adoption where national health numbers have changed there is a greater chance of medical information becoming unlinked. We have experienced both of these but most bizarrely when medical portioners who do know the family history still wants to treat based on our medical history even though we aren’t in anyway blood relatives of the young adults who live with us.
As a family are still chasing the investment that should have been made a birth into a children’s trust when they were born and yet the Government cannot track where that original grant went because the information we have doesn’t match his details at birth. The only go back as far as when child benefit was first claimed by the adopters when the rules were different.
Fortuitously, as Special Guardians we are still in touch with the birth mums. The last time I messaged about a medical issue, I could get the answer that I needed. It’s not always as easy. Strangely, she was in a ward in the hospital where I was standing in A&E at the time. Very fortunately, I hadn’t actually said where I was at the time, so we didn’t get an unplanned visit to add to the stress. For most people in the situation, I have just described this would have been impossible, at least in real time.
It’s easy to understand how having a patchy health history can cause anxiety for all concerned and really strides should be made to ensure that as much information is gathered as possible.
It goes deeper than this. Too often people with parental responsibility don’t have the information that they need. In our case despite being the children’s foster carers from a very young age and then having a court order requiring the Local Authority to hand over the medical records they never materialised and there is a limit to how often you can chase them.
Most eye opening was when one of the siblings asked for a Subject Access Request (SAR) for all of the information that the Local Authority held on her and her siblings. and yes, all data held about all of the girls was handed over, not just for the sibling who requested it. That information included masses of information that had never been shared with us, information that undoubtably would have made the children’s journey and life smoother and eased our ability to foster and parent. It simply wasn’t shared with us at the time.
I feel that it is essential that adopters, guardians and kinship carers all have opportunities to speak with others in the same boat. Not just officials or people with qualifications, but people who are doing the same as them on a 24/7 basis. Often, we don’t solve an issue, but the reassurance is there that we aren’t going mad and certainly aren’t the only people who are having the experience this is really important.
There is a debate going on with training and support that everyone providing the support should have the appropriate qualifications and insurance. Not any real lived or professional experience and this is something that is really starting to jar with me. A qualification doesn’t provide understanding, academic research that has been through multiple ethics committees can often never looks like the real world and theory will never replace real lived practical experience and advice. I went into training and consultancy after organising training for the Authority that I work for and being left with the ‘yes, but ….’ questions. When I asked those questions to the training organisation, I was taken on as a trainer to redesign and deliver training. Then the organisation which I still work for was driven by a team that included foster carers, adopters and care experienced adults.
The children – I have established above that past life experiences impact what happens in real time. I believe that it is vital that we understand where all those impacts come from, the good and the more damaging.
Equally the children need to understand their journey. Only last week I was talking to an adopter where a medical professional started asking about the adoption in front of the quite young child. They were old enough to understand and just imagine the impact if that was the first time that they had ever learnt that they had been adopted.
Having everything correctly explained to them and reinforced as a positive step grounds the young person and allows them to make sense of their life journey. I believe that for their own mental health this is essential.
However, that comes back to what the adopters know. In our family the difficult conversations come from when we are forced to say that we just don’t know. Legitimately the young people ask why not? The answer that in the emotion and upheaval of sorting out parenting responsibilities we didn’t even know to think to ask.
In the same way that parents should have the opportunity, I feel that children with care experience would benefit for meeting others in the same situation. If it is difficult for the parents and guardians, I would say it is even harder for the young people themselves to find those appropriate and supportive groups of like minded individuals.
Teams around the children - I often feel that most telling is that those involved in the adoption business, assessing children, assessing families and matching know much more and also censor the information divulged. If you know more, you would think that robust plans would be developed that address the potential knowledge of all that might come. They don’t.
I’ve been told it’s because if families knew they then they wouldn’t carry on, I am not sure of the validity of that particular statement. I’d counter that if they knew they then they would possibly be better prepared.
In assessing the impact of looking after other people’s children along the line you would also think that the often-difficult situations would have been understood and supported rather than just being judged. To often they aren’t. When parents are forced to parent differently from the age expected norms, this is often seen as a weakness rather than looking at it as a therapeutic need. A request for support becomes a full-blown safeguarding investigation founded on inferences rather than facts. The result is that fewer people seek that support. Really unhealthy for all concerned.
Far, far too often to gain access to support parent and guardians are expected to ‘attend’ parenting sessions. It is the parent that is failing rather than the system. I recall a conversation with a Gran that I had who had been told for the fifth time that she needed to attend parenting classes to access another assessment for support for one of the three grandchildren for whom she was guardian. Her response to me was that she probably knew the course better than the trainer and could deliver it herself!
I really feel that there is a need for an empathetic approach to those who chose or end up being substitute parents rather than one that judges and rations.
In writing that I am aware that there are cost implications, but the people who are looking after people where the state has deemed that they cannot live with their birth parents should be the ones picking up societies tab.
The other implication is that if you are aware of issues as a professional working in the field, then it is frankly your responsibility to act of what you know. I have been told too often that ‘it’s above my paygrade’, or ‘it’s not my decision’ or that plans are made by a manager or a panel where there is no personal accountability. Ask for the minutes of a meeting where a decision was made or the name of the person responsible for the meeting too often falls without any response. None of that is good enough. If you know and do nothing, all that is happening is that the pitfalls are perpetuated.
Other factors that impact this cohort of children and adults disproportionally – Children in this cohort are overrepresented in the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities cohort and are also educated other than at school / home schooled. If I am honest all too often any discussions that I have in advocating for my own children and supporting families locally and nationally never ever get to adoption, they fall at the lack of SEND provision wherever the family live. That is a whole other discussion and issue of course, but please don’t underestimate the impact that this has on the ability to parent.
Of course, parents and guardians battle to get the support that their children need. They aren’t awkward or overly pushy or ‘that parent’. They are advocating in a system that too often doesn’t understand and increasingly appears not to care. But to advocate you have to know, and there is only so much time energy and emotion that can be expended on a system designed to rations support. When we run out, naturally we have to stop, but that is reads as they problem has been dealt with, that is so far from the truth.
This isn’t considering the effects on my international friends who have adopted. The systems and might be different but probably some of the topics that I have discussed will strike a chord. It also doesn’t consider the added complications of trans-national adoption, whether it is adopting form abroad to the UK or from the UK to a different country, but again there will be factors that are similar. In some cases, orders granted here aren’t even recognised abroad as there is no equivalent to the SGO in particular.
Now when I sat down to write something about the Adoption Act hitting the age of 100, I didn’t think that it would end up as it has.
We need a focus on interventions where, whatever type of state sanctioned parenting is experienced, it is for the right reason, that it seeks to prevent any further harm and strives to build absolutely the best outcomes for everyone involved. The states’ key role then must become supporting that objective in word and action.
We still have a way to go to get the level playing field where all children and young people can thrive regardless of their life experiences.
We still have a way to go to ensure that everyone supporting individuals and families are empathetic, open and therapeutic.
Does Adoption in England & Wales get the message from the King? If so what should that message be?
Is adoption a valuable antique at 100? I’ll leave you to decide
Where will we be in the next 100 years? I don’t know but one thing I can say for certain is that future generations won’t be doing things in the same way.
Brian Roberts November 2026
