Agenda item

[To consider a report on the work of the Adoption Service for the period April 2014 to March 2015]

Louise Haughton, Senior Social Work Manager – Adoption, presented a report which detailed the work of the Wolverhampton City Council Adoption Service in the year April 2014 to April 2015. The report updated the Board in relation to adoption both nationally and locally and included legislative and practice changes and how these impacted on those affected by adoption in Wolverhampton.

Cllr Julie Hodgkiss referred to the Government target for the time taken with the adoption process and suggested that this should only be viewed as an aspiration with the best placement being paramount. The Senior Social Work Manager – Adoption acknowledged the point being made but commented that a balance needed to be stuck as when the correct placement had been identified it should be made to happen quickly. Cllr Peter O’Neill suggested that the Council’s good practice with adoption placements, in securing 85 during 2014/15, should be made known to other Councils.

Kyron Hughesenquired if one child in a family group was adopted whether contact with siblings was still encouraged. The Senior Social Work Manager – Adoption explained that contact would not normally cease for a variety of reasons. The law now provided for siblings to apply for a Contact Order enabling contact with the adopted sibling.

La-Myar Jamesquestioned why in certain circumstances only one child in a sibling group was adopted.  The Senior Social Work Manager – Adoption explained that this issue was considered during the care planning period and would depend on the needs of the individual children. Formal contact might reduce following adoption. She advised the Board that Adoption had very low rates of breakdown and offered greater stability to the child which could be better than familial contact. Social Workers would attempt to facilitate contact when appropriate.

Alicia Blewitt enquired whether the Council would provide support to adopted children in preparing for independence. The Senior Social Work Manager – Adoption advised that this support would normally be provided by the adoptive family.

Dasiante Dean asked why the numbers of successful adoptions had increased and whether the placements were of a high quality. The Senior Social Work Manager – Adoption explained that there were a lot of legacy cases which had now been dealt with and that the rate of placement had increased partially due to the high profile given nationally to adoption. She assured the Board that the quality of placements was subject to assessment by two Social Workers, a Manager and the Adoption Panel. She commented that there had been no breakdown in adoption relationships in the past three years which was a testimony in itself to the quality of the placements.

Tyrone Miller Coleman enquired whether adopted children had an allocated Social Worker. The Senior Social Work Manager Adoption advised that adopted children were not allocated a Social Worker but that adoption support was available.

Shereen Rafferty questioned why the amount of money allocated to adopted children was calculated and why it differed to that for Looked After Children. The Senior Social Work Manager Adoption advised that the Council did not receive financial support from the Council as this would be provided by the adoptive parents.

Cllr Stephen Simkins referred to the Adoption Reform Grant and asked how long this funding would be available and what plans were in place for when it was no longer available. He also questioned the resource implications associated with Regional Adoption Committees. The Senior Social Work Manager Adoption reported that the Adoption Reform Grant had ended in 2014/15 and as this had been known in advance the Council was prepared for this reduction in resources. She commented on the amount of work that had been undertaken during 2014/15 utilising this funding. The Head of Looked After Children reminded the Board that twelve additional Social Workers had been recruited with one allocated to the Adoption Service.

Cllr Stephen Simkins questioned whether any thought had been given to amalgamating the Adoption and Looked After Children Services. The Head of Looked After Children reported that some work had already been undertaken in this area and that all Looked After Children with an Adoption Plan were now the responsibility of the Adoption Service. The Service Director, Children and Young People reported on the work of the Adoption Leadership Board which had raised the profile and priority of adoption within the region. She commented that a likely next step would be the regionalisation of adoption and that a bid had been submitted by West Midlands Councils to Government for funding. The Black Country was already an exemplar of good practice. Invitations were likely to be extended to Telford and Shropshire Councils to participate in regional work.

Cllr Peter O’Neill referred to paragraph 3.4.6 of the report insofar as it referred to the cost of providing a placement for one child being £27,000. The Service Director, Children and Young People explained that the figure had been set under the Adoption Reform agenda. The Senior Social Work Manager Adoption reported that this cost had calculated as the average cost. Cllr Peter O’Neill enquired as to whether there was a danger of the service being privatised. The Service Director, Children and Young People reported that this was not the case but that a wider pool of placements would be made available. The Senior Social Work Manager Adoption reminded the Board that Voluntary Adoption Agencies were voluntary organisations and operated on a not for profit basis.

Cllr Jasbinder Dehar referred to paragraph 3.4.4 of the report and the apparent reduction in the number of Asian or dual heritage background being placed for adoption. The Senior Social Work Manager Adoption responded that there was no explanation available for this and that it was a completely random occurrence. The Chair, Cllr Val Gibson commented that the situation was monitored and that no trends had been identified. Cllr Richard Whitehouse reminded the Board that when dealing with small numbers percentages could be very misleading. The Service Director, Children and Young People reminded the Board of the amount of benchmarking which was undertaken and that there were no concerns in relation to this issue.

Cllr Stephen Simkins enquired as to the checks and balances in place in relation to the use of voluntary adoption agencies. The Service Director, Children and Young People reminded the Board that she had offered re-assurances previously with regard to this issue and that all adoption agencies were registered with Ofsted and subject to the Council’s vetting process. The Head of Looked After Children confirmed that the vetting process was very vigorous.

Resolved:

1. That the Wolverhampton City Council Adoption Service Annual Report April 2014 to April 2015 be received and noted;

2. That the thanks of the Board be extended to the Senior Social Work Manager Adoption for the report and her work over the reporting period;

3. That A Briefing Note be prepared and circulated in connection with the levelling of interagency placement fees.