Agenda item

Cllr John Howson, Cabinet Member for Children, Education and Young People’s Services, Kate Reynolds, Deputy Director of Education, and Teresa Rogers, Head of Service: Adopt Thames Valley, have been invited to present the Annual Report from Adopt Thames Valley.

The Committee is asked to NOTE the report.

Cllr John Howson, Cabinet Member for Children, Education and Young People’s Services, Kate Reynolds, Deputy Director of Education, Charlotte Davey, Assistant Director of Provider Services, and Teresa Rogers, Head of Service: Adopt Thames Valley, were invited to present the Annual Report from Adopt Thames Valley.

The Scrutiny Officer advised the Committee that there was no need to go into private session as long as the Committee’s questions remained general.  No cover report to the Committee had been provided and the annual report had been published as exempt.  A supplement had been published which contained information that was not exempt from disclosure.

The Head of Service: Adopt Thames Valley outlined the agency's work across multiple authorities in the region. It managed recruitment, assessment, approval of adopters, non-agency adoptions, family finding, and post-adoption support. The agency also aided special guardianship families, indirect letterbox contact, birth relatives, and adopted adults seeking records. The service contracted with Korum IAC for intercounty adoption services due to its complexity.

Members started by seeking clarification about the difference between adoption and non-agency adoption. The Head of Service explained that the number of children adopted in a year refers to children who were previously looked after and were now adopted. Non-agency adoption orders mainly involved step-parent adoptions or cases where a foster carer who had a child living with them long-term decided to adopt that child.

Members noted the high number of adopter withdrawals in 2023/24 and questioned the causes. Officers explained that delays in care proceedings due to the COVID-19 pandemic led to increased strain and unpredictability, causing some adopters to withdraw. Additionally, a lack of government funding left many potential adopters feeling unable to provide necessary care and stability.

The most significant reason behind the withdrawals was a surplus in adopters. It was suggested that, a few years ago, there was a surplus of adopters, with around three adoptive families for every child needing adoption. This led to long waiting periods and disheartening experiences for adopters who were not selected, contributing to withdrawals.

Members inquired about the target audience of the adoption service and their efforts to attract potential adopters.

The service welcomed applicants from all backgrounds, including single individuals. They focused on inclusivity and encouraged those with challenging pasts to apply, provided they have the qualities needed to parent a child and commit long-term. Efforts to debunk myths about who could adopt, supported by a national campaign, had increased the number of applicants, especially among single people.

The length of the adoption process was explained, with a statutory timescale for adoption as six months, with the first two months dedicated to statutory checks (employer checks, family and friends’ references, school references, medicals, local authority references). This could sometimes take longer due to delays in medical checks. The following four months involved a detailed assessment process where a worker meets with the family to get to know them. Additionally, the complexity of the families and the concurrent court proceedings for the child could also extend the overall process.

The Committee made no formal recommendation to the Cabinet and NOTED the report.

ACTION: In discussion before item 10 formally opened, members of the Committee AGREED that members would receive information explaining the confusion that had arisen around papers for items 10 and 11.