Adoption Policy and Practice

A Study

Iris Goodacre

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2021
• eBook ISBN: 9781000437621
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Medicine
• Subtopic: Social Work

How are adoptions arranged? How far do the present adoption service really meet the needs of the adoptive family? Originally published in 1966, these are the questions examined in this searching investigation – at the time one of the few to be undertaken since legal adoption was introduced in this country in 1926.

The scope of the survey is comprehensive for every type of adoption is included: those arranged by societies, by local authorities, by relatives and private individuals. Each step in the process is described and appraised both from the angle of the agencies and of the adopters.

The careful analysis of agency policy and practice and the compelling accounts of the adopters' experiences and attitudes makes this report of particular interest to anyone concerned with the development of this branch of the social services and its history.

The writer had extensive and varied social work experience, both in the statutory and voluntary field, and had herself arranged adoptions.

1 Introduction

Adoption exists in various forms throughout the world and dates back to antiquity. Childlessness, the wish for an heir and compassion have each played their part in establishing it as an important social institution. Formerly it was often regarded as a means of furthering the interests of the adopters. More recently, in this country amongst others, the concept and purpose have changed. Attention now focuses primarily on die child: in principle, his needs, his right to love, security and a normal family upbringing are more clearly recognized. This has resulted from a greater awareness that children who have suffered the loss of their parents’ care must be adequately compensated if their proper development is not to be jeopardized. In its turn this has led to more concern about how homeless and deprived children are cared for. Adoption is often seen as the most desirable provision if the child cannot be reunited with his own family. Indeed the Hurst Committee which reported in 1954 went so far as to claim that ‘there can be no doubt that adoption is generally a much more satisfactory solution than any form of institutional care or even fostering’.¹

The aims of English practice are adequately summarized in the following definition of adoption: it ‘is the method provided by law of establishing the legal relationship of parent and child between persons not so related by birth, with the same mutual rights and obligations that exist between children and their natural parents’.² Ideally care is taken ‘to protect the three parties concerned—children, natural parents, and adopters—from risks which may lead to unhappiness.’ Children for example ‘must be protected from adoption by people who are unsuited to the responsibility of bringing them up or want children from the wrong motives’. Similarly, ‘the natural parents must be protected from hurried or panic decisions to give up their children and from being persuaded to place them unsuitably’. In their turn the adopters ‘must be protected from undertaking responsibilities for which they are not fitted or which they have not appreciated ...’¹

¹ Report of the Departmental Committee on the Adoption of Children, (Hurst) 1954, Cmd. 9248, p. 4. Subsequent references to this Report will be to the ‘Hurst Report’. ² See Standards for Adoption Service, Child Welfare League of America, 1958, p. 1.

Adoption appears to be increasingly popular. The demand for babies exceeds supply and the number of agencies² concerned with the placement of children for adoption has grown. The importance of employing qualified child care staff” is more widely recognized and in general measures which protect children awaiting adoption have been further refined. The legal disqualifications previously inherent in the adoptive relationship have been almost completely eliminated.

In spite of these changes, and the growing proportion of the population who are affected, remarkably little is known about adoption. Indeed practically no research has been undertaken. Questions that are crucial to the welfare of the child, the natural parents and the adopters remain unanswered.³ The extent to which the protective aims of adoption are being promoted by agency policy and practice is unknown. In fact no serious assesment of the work of adoption organizations has been made. There is also an almost complete ignorance of the outcome of adoption and hence the consequences of granting orders (or refusing them) can only be surmised. Untested assumptions and popular theories abound. It seems to be widely believed for instance that privately arranged adoptions compare unfavourably with those sponsored by agencies, but that adoptions by relatives are satisfactory and straightforward. Systematic evidence for such claims does not really exist.

¹ Hurst Report, p. 4. ² Throughout the book the term ‘agencies’ is used to include adoption societies and local authority children’s departments. ³ See R. A. Parker, The Basis for Research in Adoption, Case Conference, September, 1963.

There are a number of explanations for the lack of research. In the first place, of course, the law endeavours to ensure that adoptive families shall not be at any disadvantage compared with naturally created families. As a result there is an inherent principle in legislation and practice that everything connected with adoption shall be treated as confidential. This has without doubt been a major obstacle to undertaking research, but although the privacy of adoptive families needs to be safeguarded, it is equally necessary to have sufficient knowledge to make responsible and appropriate decisions about adoption. It is impossible to gauge or improve the standard of service without knowing what happened as a result of previous decisions and procedures. It might well be argued that a real concern for the individual and individual family not merely justifies research, but makes it essential. The design of research can provide safeguards against breaches of confidentiality, as this study demonstrates.¹

Another reason for the lack of research must also be mentioned. Neither the adoption societies nor the local authority children’s departments, who might have sponsored such studies, have been in a particularly favourable position. It was not until the Children & Young Persons Act 1963 that local authorities were given formal permission to spend money on child care research. Most voluntary child care agencies have been and still are handicapped financially and the terms of their charters rarely permit funds to be diverted to research purposes. The shortage of staff has meant that few agencies have been able to undertake even minor research projects.

In any case research in this field is far from easy. Many organizations and individuals are involved and studies must be broadly based to include legal, administrative and welfare aspects. Consequently they are dependent on the close co-operation of several bodies and people who, between them, hold the key to the different sources of relevant information.

This enquiry was prompted by the general lack of research but particularly because of all social contracts except marriage, adoption probably has the most far-reaching consequences; and orders, which are irrevocable, are made when those most affected have least control over their destiny, In this study current adoption practices and the assumptions upon which they are based are examined with particular reference to the needs of the children and the adoptive familes. The research was limited to what happened in one particular area and entailed studying adoption organizations which placed children; how they worked, what assumptions they made and the problems they faced. It also required an analysis of the parts played by the local authority in supervision; the guardians ad litem, and die court at the time of the hearing. Equal emphasis was placed upon describing the reactions of adopters to their experience and on discovering what problems they were facing in the post-adoption period.

¹ See also A Code of Practice for Research in the Personal Social Services, National Council of Social Service and National Institute for Social Work Training, 1965.

Although the design of this research had many advantages, it also had many forseeable limitations in addition to the overall parameters of time, money and confidentiality. In the first place it cannot be claimed that the results are typical of the rest of the country. For lack of published statistics there is no means of knowing how far any area is representative in the number of orders made or the type of placements. The Registrar-General’s national statistics, for example, do not distinguish private adoptions from those which are agency-sponsored. Secondly, the method of selecting the adopters who were interviewed furthered the aim of making comparisons between various types of adoptions and it was not a random sample. The deliberate absence of any coercion in inviting adopters to participate in interviews will also have produced some bias: enquiry into the reasons for refusal was precluded. It must also be noted that adopters were visited once or twice only, and the impressions recorded were those obtained at one particular point in these families’ lives. For reasons of confidentiality, no attempt was made to substantiate their accounts by reference to outsiders such as teachers or doctors. Furthermore, as only recently completed adoptions (i.e. orders made between 1955-1958) were studied, families containing older adopted children tended to be excluded.

The administrative boundaries of the area in which the study was made limited coverage to certain children’s departments and adoption societies. Policy and methods varied as significantly between the two main types—statutory and voluntary—as between agencies of the same type. The particular agencies reviewed had a definite influence on the nature of the findings: the children’s departments, for example, were regarded as specially fortunate (taking the country as a whole) in that staff complements were above average and a higher ratio of trained child care officers was employed than was usual elsewhere at that time. Thus, again, the findings could not be said to be truly representative. But this particular limitation can perhaps be turned to good account: for if the better endowed agencies offer scope for the development of their services, then surely the findings can be considered as of more than local interest.

Though every effort was made to ensure that the enquiry was comprehensive, natural parents were not interviewed, except in the case of mothers adopting their illegitimate child with their husband. This limitation was accepted because it was feared that adopters would refuse to participate if the writer re-established contact with their child’s natural parents.

It also has to be borne in mind that because adoptions completed after 1958 were excluded, the study cannot claim to be a completely up-to-date record of practice. Various changes have occurred. For example, staff ratios in some agencies have improved; patterns of work have been altered, and in some cases policy has been modified.

The analysis was not undertaken from a legal viewpoint. Readers who wish to see a brief review of this aspect should consult Appendix 2. The book takes the form of a step-by-step account of the main stages in the adoption process, beginning with the selection of adopters and ‘matching’ the child, placement and supervision, and leading up to the hearing and the post-adoption period. At each point the work of the various organizations is discussed together with the reactions and impressions of the adopters. Separate chapters have been devoted to the particular problems of private adoption; mothers adopting their own children and adoption by other relatives.

The object of this survey was not merely to highlight what has been achieved. Equally it was to make a critical study of practice and the assumptions upon which it was based, and to indicate possible areas for the development of the services. It was also hoped that it would encourage a more informed public opinion about the three parties to adoption, as well as contributing to the training of those engaged in child welfare work. The promotion of more research which would further the interests of all who use the adoption services was another of its objectives.

2 Survey Method

The practical possibility of this enquiry depended on finding a children’s committee willing to allow the research worker access to the records which all children’s departments must keep in respect of each child placed for adoption in their area. These are the most comprehensive records available: without such access it would have been extremely difficult to gain the important background information upon which many aspects of the study relied. One children’s committee generously agreed to co-operate in this and several other ways. The actual area has nowhere been mentioned, for rightly, the committee was anxious to ensure that nothing should be written or said which might lead to any of the adoptive families concerned being identified.

The scope of the study is therefore limited to what happened in the administrative area of one children’s department. It was further limited to the four years 195 5-1958. These particular years were chosen to meet the challenge that the survey findings be relevant to current practice, yet not so recent that newly constituted adoptive families could be disturbed by becoming the subject of study. A span of four years was necessary to provide a sufficient number of adoptions of all types.

There were three main stages in the research. First the 295 case files pertaining to every order made in the area during the four year period were studied and as much information as possible extracted. Most of the statistics in subsequent chapters were derived from this source. The result of this examination showed that the orders could be divided into five major categories: those made to natural mothers and their husbands; those made to adopters who had had a child placed with them by a local authority; those made to adopters who had proceeded with the help of a registered adoption society; those made to couples who had made private arrangements to secure their child (either directly with the natural mother or through a third party such as a general practitioner or matron); and finally orders granted to those who were adopting related children (for example, nieces, nephews or grandchildren). The numbers and proportions in each group are set out in Table I below.

Table 1

The categories of adoption

		No.	%
I	Adoption by natural mother and husband	102	35
II	Adoption of children placed by a local authority	73	25
III	Adoption of children placed by a registered adoption society	71	24
IV	Adoptions arranged privately: either directly or by a third party	22	7
V	Adoption by relatives	27	9
		295	100

Second, a study was made of the administration and policies of all the adoption agencies which had been responsible for placing any child in the sample. In all, there were fourteen organizations. Ten were registered adoption societies (two local, two regional and six national), the remainder were children’s departments of which the host department was one.¹ Staff in each of these agencies were interviewed but most contact...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half-Title Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Original Title Page
• Original Copyright Page
• Foreword
• Consultative Panel
• Acknowledgements
• Table of Contents
• 1. Introduction
• 2. Survey Method
• 3. Selection
• 4. Matching Child and Adopter
• 5. Placement
• 6. Supervision
• 7. Making the Order
• 8. The Post-Adoption Period
• 9. Direct and Third Party Adoptions
• 10. Joint Adoptions by Mother and Step-Father
• 11. Adoption by Relatives
• 12. Conclusion
• Appendix 1 Letter sent to adopters
• Appendix 2 The legal background
• Appendix 3 Additional statistics
• Bibliography
• Index