Agenda item

To receive a report from the Head of Scrutiny and Member Development which details the evidence to be considered as part of the third formal session of the Scrutiny Board’s inquiry into Adoption in Leeds

The Board received a report from the Head of Scrutiny and Member Development which detailed the information to be considered as part of the third formal session of the Board’s inquiry into Adoption in Leeds.

Appended to the report for Members’ information was the agreed terms of reference for the inquiry, a legal briefing on the issue of adoption and reports outlining the work of the Adoption Panel, NCH and Barnardo’s in this field. This was in addition to information relating to CAFCASS which had been submitted for the Board’s consideration.

In attendance at the meeting to discuss the courts’ role in the adoption process was Judge Hunt of the County Court, Stephen Boorman, Social Services (Legal), Martin Lee of the Magistrates Court and Stephanie Martin of CAFCASS. To advise Members on the work of the Adoption Panel were Jemima Sparks, former Chair of an Adoption Panel and Dr Alison Share, Medical Advisor to an Adoption Panel and to provide an insight into the work undertaken by external agencies in this field was Donal Mullally of NCH.

Rodger Walker, Resources Team Manager and Sarah Johal, Adoption Team Manager, were also in attendance to answer Members’ questions.

Following a brief summary of the role of the courts within the adoption process, a question and answer session ensued. The main areas of debate were as follows:-

·  The timescales generally needed to complete an individual adoption case, the number of court hearings required for such a case and whether the process could be further streamlined in order to minimise any disruption to the child and the adoptive family; 

·  The main causes of delay within the adoption process and any actions which could be taken to ensure that such delays were reduced;

·  The criteria used to determine the judicial level at which an adoption case would be heard;

·  The proportion of cases which were contested by the child’s birth parents, the limited right of appeal open to them following a ruling and the judicial levels to which an appeal could be taken;

·  The extent to which information concerning a child’s health and social circumstances were relayed to prospective adopters;

·  The role of CAFCASS within the adoption process and the influence that CAFCASS had upon shaping policies which related to adoption;

·  The extent to which the recent legislative changes had impacted upon the adoption process in Leeds;

·  How the procedures followed by CAFCASS for adoption cases differed from those procedures used to deal with their involvement in cases of family break up;

·  The role of contact centres and the number of such centres which were available in Leeds;

·  The extent to which the administration of Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) checks affected the adoption process;

·  The existence of an appeals process for those prospective adopters whose application to adopt had been declined;

·  The extent to which children over a certain age were not considered for adoption;

·  The procedures in place to enable adopted children to have contact with their siblings;

·  The proportion of adoption cases within Leeds which were completed within the national target of 40 weeks.

A brief summary of the work undertaken by external agencies and the Adoption Panel throughout the process was followed by a question and answer session. The main areas of debate were:-

·  The lengthy procedures followed by the Panel’s Medical Advisor to ensure that prospective adopters were fully briefed about a child’s medical history;

·  The medical assessment of prospective adopters;

·  The support available to adoptive families to help them deal with the difficulties often experienced when caring for ‘looked after’ children;

·  The extent to which an Adoption Panel could investigate the heritage of any of the parties involved in a particular case;

·  The levels of advice and support available to birth parents following the adoption of their child;

·  With regard to those cases where pre-birth assessments were required, Members questioned what procedures had been established to try and prevent such a situation recurring in the future;

·  The actions which could be taken to minimise the levels of delay experienced in private law cases;

·  The likelihood of a Medical Advisor being appointed to assist an additional Adoption Panel in Leeds;

·  The experience and expertise brought to the adoption process by NCH;

·  Issues relating to the shortage of adoptive families from Black and Minority Ethnic backgrounds and the actions being taken to encourage a greater number of adoptive parents from such backgrounds;

·  The sources of funding received by NCH for its programme of post adoptive support and the ways in which greater financial assistance could be obtained.

RESOLVED – That the report and information appended to the report be noted.

(Councillor Mulherin left the meeting at 10.30 a.m. during the consideration of this item and Mrs S Knights left the meeting at 11.10 a.m. at the conclusion of this item)